SAFEMA Tribunal upholds provisional attachment orders in money laundering cases involving forged documents and unexplained cash seizures

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed appeals challenging provisional attachment orders in money laundering cases. In the first matter involving manipulation and forgery in supply of sub-standard materials to DG Family Welfare, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove the legitimate source of property acquisition during the scheduled offence period. The consideration was paid on different dates rather than lumpsum, and the property purchase timing coincided with the alleged offence. The prosecution complaint was timely filed before statutory amendments. In the second matter concerning seizure of Rs. 9.50 lakh, the Tribunal upheld attachment finding the appellant's documentary evidence including unsigned receipts and payment accounts were likely false and fabricated, with no satisfactory explanation provided during seizure from residential premises.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the attachment of Flat No. 701-C, Kasmanda Regent Apartment, Lucknow, as proceeds of crime, was justified.
2. Whether the seized cash amounting to Rs. 9.50 lakh was proceeds of crime.
3. Whether the procedural requirements under sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA were satisfied.
4. Whether the absence of a prosecution complaint at the time of confirming the provisional attachment order affects its validity.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Attachment of Flat No. 701-C, Kasmanda Regent Apartment:

The appellant, Sh. Saurabh Jain, contested the attachment of Flat No. 701-C, arguing that it was purchased from the funds of M/s Sommya Prakashan, a proprietorship concern unrelated to NRHM funds. The appellant provided evidence of cash withdrawal from the bank account of M/s Sommya Prakashan to support this claim. However, the Tribunal noted that the sale deed indicated the payment was made on different dates, not as a lump sum, and the timing of the property purchase coincided with the period of alleged scheduled offences. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to prove the legitimate source of funds used for the property acquisition, thus supporting the attachment as proceeds of crime.

2. Seized Cash Amounting to Rs. 9.50 lakh:

Smt. Rajni Jain claimed the seized cash was from M/s Midtown Hotel and Banquet, unrelated to M/s Siddhi Traders involved in the NRHM scheme. However, the cash was seized from the residence of Sh. Saurabh Jain, and at the time of seizure, no satisfactory explanation was provided. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation, supported by internal documents and accounts, unconvincing and potentially fabricated. Given the lack of credible evidence linking the cash to legitimate business activities, the Tribunal upheld the attachment, considering it proceeds of crime.

3. Procedural Requirements under Sections 5 and 8 of PMLA:

The appellants argued that the provisional attachment order lacked a prosecution complaint at the time of confirmation, violating procedural requirements. The Tribunal clarified that at the time of the impugned order, there was no statutory time limit for filing a prosecution complaint. The Tribunal referenced its previous decision in M/s Nirved Traders, which established that amendments setting time limits for filing prosecution complaints were prospective and not applicable retroactively. Thus, the procedural requirements were deemed satisfied.

4. Absence of Prosecution Complaint:

The Tribunal addressed the contention regarding the absence of a prosecution complaint during the confirmation of the provisional attachment order. It reiterated that the relevant legal framework at the time did not mandate a prosecution complaint before confirming an attachment order. The Tribunal emphasized that the attachment serves as a preventive measure to ensure proceeds of crime remain available for legal proceedings. Therefore, the absence of a prosecution complaint did not invalidate the attachment order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the attachment of the flat and the seizure of cash as proceeds of crime. It found the appellants' explanations and evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption of proceeds of crime under the PMLA. The procedural arguments raised by the appellants were also rejected based on the legal framework applicable at the time of the orders.

---