Invalid "debit-freeze" order overturned due to procedural non-compliance under Money Laundering Act.

The court found the "debit-freeze" order issued by the 3rd respondent on the petitioners' bank accounts to be invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order, and directed the bank to permit the petitioners to operate their accounts. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following due process and procedural safeguards in exercising powers under the Act, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal requirements in such cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the "debit-freeze" order on petitioners' bank accounts.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Validity of the investigation and ancillary powers exercised by the 3rd respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the "debit-freeze" order on petitioners' bank accounts:
The petitioners, involved in the manufacture, sale, and export of carpets and floor coverings, challenged the imposition of a "debit-freeze" on their bank accounts by the 3rd respondent. The freeze was based on an order dated 06.11.2020 from the Enforcement Directorate, communicated to the 4th respondent bank. The petitioners argued that they were not informed of this order and only became aware of the case against them upon receiving a Show Cause Notice from the adjudicating authority under the Act on 22.01.2021. The 3rd respondent justified the freeze by citing an ongoing investigation into money laundering activities involving transfers of Rs. 47.41 crores from the petitioners' accounts to entities linked with a certain individual, Vaddi Mahesh.

2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
The court examined the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly Sections 5 and 17, which mandate that any attachment or seizure of property must be based on a written record of the officer's "reason to believe" that the property is involved in money laundering. The court noted that no such reasons were recorded in the order dated 06.11.2020. The Supreme Court's judgment in OPTO Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank and others (Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2021) was cited, emphasizing that the due process set out in the Act must be followed, including the formation of a written opinion by the concerned authority. The court found that the 3rd respondent failed to meet these procedural requirements.

3. Validity of the investigation and ancillary powers exercised by the 3rd respondent:
The 3rd respondent contended that the "debit-freeze" order was part of the investigation process defined under Section 2(na) of the Act, which includes all proceedings for collecting evidence. The respondent argued that such measures were necessary to prevent further money laundering and relied on a judgment from the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rose Valley Real Estate and Constructions Limited vs. Union of India & others. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Supreme Court's judgment in OPTO Circuit India Limited, which requires compliance with procedural safeguards, takes precedence. The court held that the ancillary powers claimed by the 3rd respondent do not override the necessity of following the due process established by the Act.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the "debit-freeze" order dated 06.11.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent was invalid due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the order was set aside. The 4th respondent was directed to permit the petitioners to operate their bank accounts. However, the judgment clarified that this decision does not preclude the authorities from initiating fresh action in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in the exercise of powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The failure to record reasons for the "debit-freeze" order and to follow the due process rendered the order invalid, leading to its annulment and the restoration of the petitioners' banking operations.

---