Money laundering complaint upheld under Section 45 for customs duty evasion on carbide imports

HC dismissed petition challenging complaint under Section 45 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 concerning customs duty evasion on carbide inserts imported through 9 bills of entry during 2009-2011. Court held money laundering is a stand-alone offence distinct from customs violations. Petitioners argued lack of involvement in company's day-to-day operations, but court ruled complaint concerned possession and use of crime proceeds, not directorial capacity offences. Following Vijay Madanlal Choudhary precedent, court confirmed ED investigation into money laundering can proceed independently of predicate offence prosecution. Petition found devoid of merit; accused must face trial.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is maintainable without implicating the company alongside its directors.
2. Whether the proceedings under PMLA can continue independently of the proceedings for the predicate offence.
3. Whether the directors can be prosecuted for money laundering independently of the company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Complaint Under PMLA Without Implicating the Company:

The petitioners contended that the complaint under PMLA is not maintainable as the company involved in the alleged predicate offence was not made an accused. They argued that under Section 70 of PMLA, when a contravention is committed by a company, the company and every person in charge of the company should be proceeded against. The court analyzed Section 70 and observed that it is not necessary to prosecute the company alongside its directors for money laundering. The court distinguished between the predicate offence and the offence of money laundering, stating that while the predicate offence may have been committed by the company, the act of money laundering could have been committed by individuals in their personal capacity. The court cited various judgments, including "Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh," which support the prosecution of individuals without necessarily prosecuting the company.

2. Independence of PMLA Proceedings from Predicate Offence:

The petitioners argued that since proceedings for the predicate offence were already initiated by the CBI, the PMLA proceedings were not maintainable. The court clarified that the offence of money laundering is a standalone offence, independent of the predicate offence. The court emphasized that PMLA proceedings can be initiated once an FIR for a scheduled offence is registered, and it is not necessary for the predicate offence to be proved before proceeding under PMLA. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in "Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors v. Union of India," which stated that money laundering is an independent offence connected to the proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence.

3. Prosecution of Directors Independently of the Company:

The court addressed the contention that directors cannot be prosecuted without implicating the company. It reiterated that under Section 3 of PMLA, any person involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime can be prosecuted for money laundering. The court noted that the investigation revealed proceeds of crime in the form of immovable properties in the names of the accused directors, not the company. Thus, the directors were charged for money laundering in their individual capacity. The court emphasized that the directors' involvement in money laundering is distinct from their roles as directors and can be prosecuted independently. The court also highlighted that the burden of proving that the offence occurred without their knowledge lies with the accused, as per the proviso to Section 70 of PMLA.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the complaint under PMLA is maintainable against the directors without implicating the company. It upheld the independence of PMLA proceedings from the predicate offence and confirmed that directors can be prosecuted for money laundering independently. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

---