SAFEMA Tribunal upholds retention of seized records and digital devices in money laundering case under Section 17(1)

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed appeals challenging retention of seized records and digital devices. The case involved offences under Section 120-B with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Tribunal held that seized documents were relevant to money laundering charges and properly retained under Section 17(1), which permits continuation of retention beyond 180 days subject to Adjudicating Authority orders. The Tribunal found no violation of provisions regarding seizure and retention, noting that Section 17 allows recovery of money laundering-related documents without requiring possession by accused persons.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of seizure and retention of documents and devices from Abhinav Saxena, who is not implicated as an accused.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for confirmation of seizure by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Legality of retention of seized property beyond 180 days.
4. Relevance of documents and devices seized from Abhinav Saxena in the context of the alleged crime.
5. Procedural compliance in sending all seized materials to the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Seizure and Retention from Abhinav Saxena:

The appellants argued that Abhinav Saxena, not being an accused, should not have had his documents and devices seized and retained, as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002. The respondents countered that documents found with Abhinav Saxena were relevant to the investigation and linked to the accused, thus justifying their retention. The tribunal found that Section 17 allows for the seizure of documents related to money laundering, even if not directly in possession of an accused, and upheld the retention of the documents.

2. Procedural Compliance for Confirmation of Seizure:

The appellants contended that the respondents did not produce all seized items for confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, specifically mentioning a locker key and a hard disk. The tribunal noted that the appellants did not raise these factual issues before the Adjudicating Authority or in their appeal, and thus could not proceed further on these grounds. The tribunal found that the seized items were recorded in the Panchnama and were part of the Prosecution Complaint (PC), indicating procedural compliance.

3. Legality of Retention Beyond 180 Days:

The appellants argued that retention beyond 180 days was illegal under Section 20(1) of the PMLA. The tribunal clarified that while Section 20(1) provides for an initial retention period of 180 days, it allows for continuation if confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. In this case, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the retention, thereby making it lawful.

4. Relevance of Seized Documents and Devices:

The tribunal found that the documents and devices seized from Abhinav Saxena were relevant to proving the commission of the alleged crime by the accused, as they were included in the PC. The tribunal emphasized that the relevance of the material seized was demonstrated by its inclusion in the PC, thereby justifying its retention.

5. Procedural Compliance in Sending Seized Materials:

The appellants referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in J.K. Tyre & Industries to argue that all seized materials should have been sent to the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide pleadings on this issue and found that the respondents had complied with procedural requirements by sending the relevant materials, as indicated in the Panchnama and their inclusion in the PC.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants. It held that the seizure and retention of documents and devices were lawful, as they were relevant to the investigation and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal emphasized that Section 17 allows for the seizure of documents related to money laundering, regardless of whether they are in the possession of an accused.

---