SAFEMA Tribunal upholds attachment order after excluding COVID-19 period from Section 5 limitation calculation

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant sought lapse of attachment order citing Section 5(1) and (3), arguing the Adjudicating Authority failed to terminate proceedings within the mandatory 180-day period. The Tribunal rejected this contention, noting that COVID-19 constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 20.08.2022 from the limitation calculation, as established by SC precedent. After excluding this period, only 26 days remained, well within the 180-day limit. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery in relation to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
3. Validity of the FIRs and ECIR in light of existing civil disputes.
4. Compliance with statutory timelines for confirming the provisional attachment order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Attachment Order:

The appeal challenges the order confirming the attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant argued that the attachment order should be set aside as the allegations of money laundering were unfounded. The respondent maintained that the attachment was justified due to the appellant's involvement in scheduled offenses as per the Act. The Tribunal found that the material on record was sufficient to establish a case of money laundering, thereby upholding the attachment order.

2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating, and Forgery:

The appellant was accused of inflating the number of eligible persons for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by submitting forged documents, resulting in the illegal allotment of residential rooms and shops. The investigation revealed that the appellant, along with others, engaged in criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, leading to financial losses for the government. The Tribunal noted that the allegations were supported by evidence, including statements from government officials, which justified the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

3. Validity of the FIRs and ECIR in Light of Existing Civil Disputes:

The appellant contended that the FIRs were not maintainable due to an ongoing civil dispute with M/s Chintan Life Spaces LLP. It was argued that the civil suit should take precedence over criminal proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted that the FIRs and ECIR were based on criminal activities, independent of the civil dispute. The existence of a civil suit did not negate the validity of the FIRs or the ECIR, as both addressed different aspects of the appellant's conduct.

4. Compliance with Statutory Timelines for Confirming the Provisional Attachment Order:

The appellant argued that the order confirming the attachment was passed beyond the statutory 180-day period, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on legal proceedings, referencing the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods during the pandemic. It was determined that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should be excluded from the computation of the 180-day period, thereby validating the timing of the confirmation order. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not contravene the Supreme Court's directives, which extended the limitation period due to extraordinary circumstances.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming the legality of the attachment order and the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the invalidity of the FIRs, the influence of civil disputes on criminal proceedings, or the alleged lapse of the attachment order due to statutory timelines. The decision underscored the adherence to the Supreme Court's guidance on limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

---