SAFEMA Tribunal upholds FEMA violations for unauthorized Geneva bank accounts, reduces penalties to Rs. 72.5 lakhs

The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA upheld FEMA violations for holding unauthorized Geneva bank accounts without RBI approval. The Tribunal rejected the mens rea defense, ruling that FEMA penalties are civil obligations requiring no guilty intent. Despite appellants bringing back Rs. 6.14 crores and paying income tax, penalties were reduced from Rs. 5 crores total to Rs. 72.5 lakhs based on pre-deposits made. Appellant No. 1 received higher penalty due to greater involvement in foreign account transfers.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against Adjudication Order under FEMA.
2. Allegations of contravention of FEMA provisions.
3. Imposition of penalties on appellants.
4. Pre-deposit of penalty amounts.
5. Arguments regarding consultancy fees and tax payments.
6. Legal arguments on contraventions under FEMA.
7. Interpretation of penalty provisions under FEMA.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to Appeals No. FPA-FE-41/MUM/2018 & FPA-FE-42/MUM/2018 challenging an Adjudication Order under FEMA issued by the Additional Director of the Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai. The appellants sought to set aside the said order dated 13-4-2018.

2. The complaint alleged that the appellants maintained a joint account in a foreign bank where consultancy earnings were deposited and subsequently transferred to accounts in Geneva and Dubai without RBI approval. The Adjudication Order found charges established, leading to penalties of Rs. 1.5 crores and Rs. 3.5 crores on the appellants, respectively, for contraventions of FEMA provisions.

3. The Tribunal allowed pre-deposits of penalty amounts by the appellants. The appellants argued that the funds were consultancy fees from Nigeria, and they had paid taxes on the foreign exchange. They also highlighted compliance efforts and previous tribunal decisions in their favor.

4. The respondent contended that the appellants violated FEMA by depositing foreign exchange abroad without RBI permission, and the offense was completed due to delayed remittance. The respondent emphasized deliberate intent in holding foreign funds abroad and argued against the appeal.

5. The judgment analyzed the contraventions under FEMA and the imposition of penalties. It referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that penalty imposition does not require mens rea. The FEMA provisions clearly outlined penalties for contraventions without specifying mens rea, emphasizing civil obligations over intent.

6. Considering the facts and actions of the appellants, including bringing back the foreign exchange and paying taxes, the penalties were reduced to the pre-deposit amounts. The division of funds between the appellants led to adjusted penalties of Rs. 37.5 lakhs and Rs. 35 lakhs for each appellant, respectively, based on their involvement in the fund transfers.

7. The judgment partly allowed the appeals, acknowledging the appellants' compliance efforts and tax payments while reducing the penalties to the pre-deposit amounts. The decision was based on the interpretation of FEMA provisions and previous legal precedents regarding penalty imposition without requiring mens rea.

---