Appeal dismissed for money laundering case involving loan fraud and fund siphoning under Section 17

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case involved allegations of obtaining substantial loans from financial institutions and siphoning funds. The appellant argued non-service of written reasons for search and seizure caused prejudice. The Tribunal held that since the ECIR was recorded in 2019, search conducted in 2023, and relevant documents were included in the show cause notice, no prejudice was caused to the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the case from J. Sekar v. Union of India, noting different purposes under various Act provisions. The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no grounds for interference with the lower authority's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Requirement to supply a copy of the "reasons to believe" recorded under Section 17(1) of the PMLA to the appellant.
3. Validity of the retention of seized materials and documents.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the PMLA and related judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted Under Section 17 of the PMLA:
The search and seizure were conducted at the residential premises of Neeraj Singal on 09.06.2023 under Section 17 of the PMLA. The authorized officer carried out the search based on information in possession and having reasons to believe that an act of money laundering was committed. The search and seizure involved the confiscation of two mobile phones, 15 Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to Rs. 2.4 Crore, and some loose documents. The search was conducted following the procedure outlined in Section 17, including drawing up a Panchnama and forwarding a copy of the reasons to believe to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope.

2. Requirement to Supply a Copy of the "Reasons to Believe" Recorded Under Section 17(1) of the PMLA to the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the non-supply of the reasons to believe recorded under Section 17(1) deprived them of the ability to contest the matter effectively before the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant relied on judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's judgment in J. Sekar v/s. Union of India and the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT, West Bengal v/s. Oriental Rubber Works. However, the tribunal found that the reasons to believe were conveyed to the appellant through the show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(1) of the PMLA, which sufficed the purpose and compliance with the judicial precedents cited. The tribunal noted that the stage prior to the initiation of Section 8(1) proceedings is administrative in nature and does not require the supply of reasons to believe recorded under Section 17(1).

3. Validity of the Retention of Seized Materials and Documents:
The tribunal examined whether the retention of the seized materials and documents was valid. Under Section 17(4) of the PMLA, the retention of property or seized material beyond 30 days requires confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice along with the reasons to believe, thereby fulfilling the requirement to provide the appellant with an opportunity to contest the retention. The tribunal found that the reasons to believe were adequately conveyed to the appellant, and the retention of the seized materials was in compliance with the procedural requirements under the PMLA.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under the PMLA and Related Judicial Precedents:
The tribunal reviewed the procedural compliance with the PMLA and relevant judicial precedents. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Narayanyappa v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax and Biswanath Bhattacharya v/s. Union of India, which held that the process of recording reasons for search and seizure is administrative in nature and does not require communication to the affected party at the initial stage. The tribunal also noted that the judgment in J. Sekar v/s. Union of India is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, and its operation has been stayed. The tribunal found that the procedural requirements under the PMLA were met, and the non-supply of reasons to believe recorded under Section 17(1) did not cause any prejudice to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the order denying the copy of the reasons to believe recorded under Section 17(1) of the PMLA. The tribunal held that the reasons to believe were adequately conveyed through the show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority, and the retention of the seized materials was in compliance with the procedural requirements under the PMLA. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

---