Tribunal upholds provisional attachment order under PMLA 2002, rejects challenges on mis-joinder and section 8(1) non-compliance

The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA upheld the provisional attachment order under PMLA 2002, rejecting challenges based on mis-joinder of parties and non-compliance with section 8(1). The tribunal found no mis-joinder as the accused were in possession of proceeds of crime when attachment was ordered, and the Official Liquidator's appointment was unknown to the Competent Authority. Section 8(1) compliance was satisfied as all accused persons alleged to have committed offences under section 3 were given hearing opportunities. The tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority properly recorded prima facie findings about money laundering without making conclusive determinations about offence commission, which remains within Special Court jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Mis-joinder of parties in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Non-compliance with Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Jurisdiction and power of the Adjudicating Authority under Sections 8(2) and 8(3) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mis-joinder of Parties:

The appellants contended that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority were flawed due to mis-joinder of parties. They argued that they were not in possession of the proceeds of crime, and those who were in possession, such as the Official Liquidator, were not impleaded. The Tribunal examined Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which allows for the attachment of property if any person is in possession of proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found that, at the time of attachment, the defendants, including M/s Birla Surya Limited, were alleged to be in possession of the proceeds of crime. The Tribunal noted that the Official Liquidator was not required to be heard under Section 5(1) before attachment, as the provision for hearing is under Section 8(1). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the argument of mis-joinder was not substantiated, as the defendants were in possession of the proceeds at the relevant time.

2. Non-compliance with Section 8(1):

The appellants argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to comply with Section 8(1) of the Act, which mandates serving a notice to persons in possession of proceeds of crime or those who committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act. They claimed that the Official Liquidator, who had control over the attached properties, was not notified. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had reason to believe that the defendants committed an offence under Section 3 and were given an opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal noted that M/s Birla Surya Limited, who were relevant to inform about the appointment of the Official Liquidator, remained unrepresented. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of Section 8(1), as the defendants accused of the offence were provided an opportunity to be heard.

3. Jurisdiction and Power of Adjudicating Authority:

The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, arguing that it exceeded its powers under Sections 8(2) and 8(3) by recording findings on the commission of a scheduled offence. The Tribunal examined the Adjudicating Authority's conclusions, noting that a prima facie conclusion was drawn regarding the commission of the scheduled offence, generation of proceeds of crime, and money laundering. The Tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority is obligated to form a prima facie opinion to determine if a case of money laundering is made out, which is not a conclusive finding. The Tribunal emphasized that the final determination of the offence would be made by the Special Court based on evidence, independent of the Adjudicating Authority's order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal found no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and disposed of the appeals with the clarification that the prima facie opinion recorded by the Adjudicating Authority would not influence the Special Court's findings. The interim order remained unchanged.

---