Tribunal quashes property attachment in money laundering case, emphasizes resolution in civil court

The tribunal concluded that the property (1180 sq. ft.) was not involved in money laundering and set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2014. Consequently, the provisional attachment order dated 08.08.2013 was quashed, and the attachment was released forthwith. The tribunal reiterated that the ownership and title disputes should be resolved in a civil court. No costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legitimacy of the provisional attachment order dated 08.08.2013.
2. Involvement of the appellant's property in money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Ownership and possession of the disputed property (1180 sq. ft.).
4. Jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide on civil disputes related to property ownership.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Provisional Attachment Order:

The appeal was filed to set aside the order dated 04.02.2014 by the Adjudicating Authority and the provisional attachment order dated 08.08.2013. The provisional attachment was based on the investigation that revealed a criminal conspiracy involving the sanctioning and release of fraudulent housing loans, leading to the misappropriation of funds by Shri B. Subramaniam and Shri K. Gnanasekaran.

2. Involvement of the Appellant's Property in Money Laundering:

The respondent argued that the property (1180 sq. ft.) was involved in money laundering. However, the appellants contended that the entire proceeds of the crime pertained to a different portion of land (1200 sq. ft.). The appellants were not charge-sheeted under the scheduled offense, and no prosecution complaint under PMLA was filed against them. The tribunal found that the appellants' property was not involved in the offense of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.

3. Ownership and Possession of the Disputed Property:

The appellants claimed ownership of the 1180 sq. ft. property based on advance payments made to the original owner, N. Soundar Rajan, and subsequent peaceful possession since April 2004. The appellants provided various documents, including receipts of payments, sale deeds, and utility bills, to support their claim. The tribunal noted that the possession of the appellants was not disputed and that the title to the land should be decided by a competent civil court, not the tribunal.

4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:

The tribunal emphasized that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide civil disputes related to property ownership. The appellants' claim of ownership and adverse possession needed to be adjudicated by a civil court. The tribunal also highlighted that no civil litigation was pending against the appellants regarding the disputed property.

Conclusion:

The tribunal concluded that the property (1180 sq. ft.) was not involved in money laundering and set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2014. Consequently, the provisional attachment order dated 08.08.2013 was quashed, and the attachment was released forthwith. The tribunal reiterated that the ownership and title disputes should be resolved in a civil court. No costs were imposed.

---