2022 (11) TMI 1191 - HC - Money Laundering

Court dismisses challenge to money laundering charges, finding prima facie offense.

The court dismissed the petitions challenging the summoning order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It found that a prima facie offense ... Smuggling - proceeds of crime - mere presence can be termed as participation or not? - summon under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quite wide but much restricted by the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen judgments. In case prima facie case is made out, generally interference is not warranted in this jurisdiction. What is being argued is that the role of the petitioners does not make out any case. The witnesses have categorically told about it. Not only Dr. Tarun Rao but other witnesses have also stated about the role of the petitioners. It is not a case of mere presence of the petitioners, which is the basis of their implication. It is the case of assisting someone to acquire proceeds of crime. The role assigned to the petitioners is that they assisted someone to acquire and conceal the proceeds of crime. It definitely makes out a prima facie case under Section 4 of the Act against the petitioners. A detailed examination or mini-trial at this stage, is not expected of. This Court is of the view that prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. There is no reason to make any interference in the petitions. Accordingly, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order summoning petitioners under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Analysis:1. Facts and Background: The petitions challenge an order summoning the petitioners under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) related to a case of cheating individuals for admission in a medical college. 2. Legal Provisions: Section 3 of the PMLA defines money laundering as any activity connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, or use. Section 4 provides punishment for money laundering. Proceeds of crime are defined under Section 2(u) of the Act. 3. Petitioners' Arguments: The petitioners argue that no prima facie case is made out against them as they did not directly benefit from the proceeds of crime and were merely present without active participation in the criminal activities. 4. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contends that the petitioners actively participated in the criminal activities by assisting in concealing and acquiring the proceeds of crime, as detailed in the complaint and witness statements. 5. Court's Analysis: The court examined the roles of the petitioners as described in the complaint and witness statements, which showed their active involvement in inducing victims for admissions and assisting in generating funds from criminal activities. 6. Prima Facie Case: The court found that the petitioners' roles in aiding and abetting money laundering activities were sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Section 4 of the PMLA, based on the evidence presented. 7. Jurisdiction under Section 482: The court noted that interference is generally not warranted under Section 482 of the CrPC if a prima facie case is made out, emphasizing the importance of not conducting a detailed examination or mini-trial at this stage. 8. Conclusion: After considering the arguments and evidence, the court concluded that a prima facie offense was established against the petitioners, leading to the dismissal of both petitions challenging the summoning order.This detailed analysis highlights the legal provisions, arguments presented by both parties, the court's examination of the evidence, and the final decision based on the established prima facie case against the petitioners under the PMLA.