Tribunal upholds property attachment in fraud case but restrains physical possession, questions enforcement action delay

The Tribunal found that the properties attached were not acquired from proceeds of crime and were not linked to the alleged fraudulent activities. Despite acknowledging certain issues raised by the appellant, the Tribunal decided to maintain the attachment but restrained the respondent from taking physical possession of the properties. The Tribunal highlighted the delay in passing the provisional attachment order and questioned the lack of action by the Enforcement Directorate against another party involved in the case. The appeal was disposed of without costs, with no opinion expressed on the allegations in the FIR or charge-sheet under PMLA.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order of attachment.
2. Whether the properties attached were acquired from proceeds of crime.
3. The appellant's involvement in the alleged fraud and money laundering.
4. The delay in passing the provisional attachment order.
5. The role of M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. and the lack of action against them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order of Attachment:
The Tribunal examined whether the impugned order of attachment is sustainable in law. The appellant challenged the attachment order dated 31.05.2017, arguing that they had no contractual relationship with the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) and were merely providing services to M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. The Tribunal noted that the appellant received payments for services provided to M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. during 2004 to 2006 and that the properties attached were acquired between 2003 and 2011. The Tribunal found that the properties were not purchased during the period of alleged fraudulent activities and thus could not be construed as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. However, the Tribunal decided not to release the attachment but restrained the respondent from taking physical possession of the properties.

2. Whether the Properties Attached Were Acquired from Proceeds of Crime:
The Tribunal noted that the payments made to the appellant for services provided to M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. were received between 06.02.2004 and 08.04.2006. The properties in question were purchased during 2003, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The appellant argued that the source of acquisition of these properties was duly disclosed to the Income Tax Department and provided the relevant Income Tax Returns (ITRs) to the respondents during the investigation. The Tribunal acknowledged this but did not release the attachment, citing the need for further investigation and trial.

3. The Appellant's Involvement in the Alleged Fraud and Money Laundering:
The Tribunal examined the appellant's role in the alleged fraud and money laundering. The appellant argued that they had no privity of contract with NMMC and were not responsible for the acts of M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. The Tribunal noted that the FIR and subsequent investigations primarily targeted M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. and that the appellant was not named in the initial FIR but was added in a supplementary charge-sheet. The Tribunal found that the appellant's involvement and the allegations against them needed to be tested in trial.

4. The Delay in Passing the Provisional Attachment Order:
The Tribunal expressed concern over the inordinate delay of seven years between the filing of the FIR and the passing of the provisional attachment order. The Tribunal noted that no valid explanation was provided by the respondent for this delay. Despite this, the Tribunal decided not to release the attachment, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The Role of M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co. and the Lack of Action Against Them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED):
The Tribunal highlighted that the specific complaint of NMMC was against M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co., who had submitted the forged bills. The Tribunal noted that the ED had not taken any action against M/s. H.B. Bhise & Co., nor had they attached its properties or filed a prosecution complaint against them. The Tribunal found this lack of action by the ED questionable and noted that the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that no case was made out to release the attached properties at this stage, despite certain issues raised by the appellant having some merit. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by modifying the impugned order, directing that the attachment of properties shall continue, but restraining the respondent from taking physical possession. The Tribunal clarified that no opinion was expressed on the allegations made in the FIR or the charge-sheet under PMLA, and both complaints shall be decided on their own merits without any influence from this order. The appeal and pending applications were disposed of with no costs.

---