TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Enforcement Directorate's jurisdiction under PMLA, allows challenge to attachment order.</h1> <h3>Umsaw Khwan Village Durbar And 3 Ors., Handerland Nongskeh, Stanly Wiss Rymbai, Inobel Mawlong Versus Enforcement Directorate And 5 Ors., Joint Director Enforcement Directorate, Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate, Adjudicating Authority (Pmla) Rep. By Its Registrar/ Administrative Officer, State Of Meghalaya Rep. By The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of Meghalaya, Superintendent Of Police</h3> Umsaw Khwan Village Durbar And 3 Ors., Handerland Nongskeh, Stanly Wiss Rymbai, Inobel Mawlong Versus Enforcement Directorate And 5 Ors., Joint Director ... Issues Involved:1. Quashing of proceedings and Provisional Attachment Order.2. Defreezing of bank accounts.3. Jurisdiction and authority under PMLA, 2002.4. Forum non conveniens.5. Alternative remedy.6. Subjective satisfaction and material basis for provisional attachment.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Proceedings and Provisional Attachment Order:The petitioners sought quashing of proceedings under File Nos. ECIR/05/GWZO/2017/1390, ECIR/05/GWZO/2017/1391, and ECIR/05/GWZO/2017/1392, as well as the Provisional Attachment Order No. 03/2018 dated 28.09.2018. The petitioners argued that the land acquisition had been settled in their favor through various judicial orders, and there was no question of tainted money. They contended that the money paid was used for community purposes. The court, however, found that the Enforcement Directorate had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under PMLA, 2002, based on reasonable belief and materials in possession.2. Defreezing of Bank Accounts:The petitioners requested the defreezing of bank accounts mentioned in the Provisional Attachment Order. The court noted that the petitioners could raise their objections before the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of PMLA, 2002. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority has the power to examine the validity of the attachment order and the grounds of satisfaction required under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of PMLA, 2002.3. Jurisdiction and Authority under PMLA, 2002:The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate, arguing that the term 'criminal activity' in Section 2(u) should mean 'proved criminal activity' by a court of law. The court clarified that 'criminal activity' refers to alleged involvement in a schedule offense and not necessarily a proved offense. The court held that the Enforcement Directorate had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under PMLA, 2002, based on reasonable belief of criminal activity.4. Forum Non Conveniens:The State of Meghalaya raised a preliminary objection on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that the petitioners reside and conduct business in Meghalaya, making the High Court of Meghalaya the appropriate forum. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Union of India and the Enforcement Directorate did not raise any issue regarding forum non conveniens. The court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the proceedings were initiated by the Enforcement Directorate at Guwahati Zonal Office, Assam.5. Alternative Remedy:The court addressed the issue of alternative remedy, stating that alternative remedy is not a bar to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the jurisdiction of the authority is questioned. The court held that the petitioners could raise their objections before the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of PMLA, 2002, and further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and High Court under Sections 26 and 42 of PMLA, 2002.6. Subjective Satisfaction and Material Basis for Provisional Attachment:The court examined whether the subjective satisfaction for issuing the provisional attachment order was based on credible materials. It emphasized that the satisfaction must be based on materials in possession of the authority and should be in writing. The court noted that the adjudicating authority has the power to examine the correctness of the attachment order, including the grounds of satisfaction under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of PMLA, 2002.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Enforcement Directorate had the jurisdiction to issue the provisional attachment order and that the adjudicating authority has the power to examine its validity. The court did not interfere with the provisional attachment order and directed the petitioners to avail their right to file a reply before the adjudicating authority. The writ petition was disposed of, with the court making no comment on the validity of the attachment order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
