Appellate Tribunal sets aside Rs. 2.84 crore attachment order recognizing legitimate share transfer payment through banking channels

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside the Provisional Attachment Order for Rs. 2.84 crores, ruling that the appellant legitimately received this amount through banking channels as consideration for transferring shares to another party. The tribunal found that authorities failed to recognize the appellant's entitlement to receive payment for the share transfer and ignored proper documentation of the transaction's source. For the separate Rs. 11 crores proceeds of crime allegation, the tribunal ordered status quo on property possession until trial conclusion, with the appellant prohibited from alienating properties pending final outcome.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this batch of appeals are:

(a) Whether the Provisional Attachment Order dated 11.02.2022, confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.08.2022, attaching properties worth Rs. 2.84 crores as proceeds of crime is legally sustainable, given that the amount was allegedly received by the appellant and his family members through legitimate banking channels as consideration for transfer of shares in a company;

(b) Whether the attachment of properties against the alleged proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 11 crores received in cash from the main accused in the Syndicate Bank scam is justified;

(c) The appropriate relief and interim measures regarding possession and alienation of the attached properties pending trial;

(d) The extent to which the findings and observations in the impugned orders affect the trial court's independent adjudication.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Legality of attachment of properties worth Rs. 2.84 crores as proceeds of crime

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requires that the properties be identified as proceeds of crime. The Provisional Attachment Order is subject to scrutiny on the basis of whether the attached assets are indeed derived from criminal activity. The principle of lawful source and proper investigation into the origin of funds is crucial.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts that the Rs. 2.84 crores were received by the appellant, his family members, and associated companies through banking channels as consideration for transfer of shares in M/s G.S. Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. The transfer was pursuant to a settlement between the appellant and Shri Pavitra Kothari, who had reservations about the appellant's conduct and accounting practices. The Tribunal noted that the amount was received as legitimate payment for shares transferred to Shri Pavitra Kothari.

Key evidence and findings: Documentary evidence showed the receipt of Rs. 2.84 crores through bank accounts, with clear disclosure of source and transaction details. The respondent failed to demonstrate that these funds were proceeds of crime. The respondent's contention that the payment by Shri Pavitra Kothari was out of proceeds of crime obtained from the Syndicate Bank scam was not substantiated with adequate evidence.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that since the appellant was entitled to receive the amount as consideration for shares transferred, the attachment of the amount in his hands was not justified. If the funds were proceeds of crime, the proper course would have been to attach the shares transferred to Shri Pavitra Kothari, not the amount received by the appellant.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's failure to clarify or rebut the appellant's explanation regarding the source and nature of the Rs. 2.84 crores led the Tribunal to find the attachment order unsustainable in this respect.

Conclusion: The Provisional Attachment Order insofar as it pertains to Rs. 2.84 crores is set aside, and the attachment of properties to that extent is quashed.

Issue (b): Attachment of properties against alleged proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 11 crores

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The attachment of properties as proceeds of crime under PMLA is permissible where the investigation reveals sufficient material to link the assets to criminal activity. Confessions or statements under Sections 50(2) and (3) of PMLA, read with relevant IPC provisions, are significant evidentiary materials.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the main accused in the Syndicate Bank scam, Shri Bharat Bomb, admitted in statements recorded under Section 50(2) & (3) of PMLA that he paid approximately Rs. 11 crores in cash to the appellant, Shri Vikas Jain. Additional corroborative evidence included statements of other accused and documentary evidence indicating layering and investment of these proceeds in properties.

Key evidence and findings: The statements of Bharat Bomb and Pavitra Kothari, bank transaction records, and property purchase documents established a clear link between the Rs. 11 crores and proceeds of crime. The appellant did not provide any satisfactory explanation for this amount.

Application of law to facts: Given the substantial evidence, the attachment of properties against the Rs. 11 crores as proceeds of crime was justified under the PMLA.

Treatment of competing arguments: Although the appellant requested an equitable order to maintain possession of the properties pending trial, the respondent did not oppose this request. The Tribunal balanced the interests by allowing possession to remain with the appellant subject to non-alienation and the final outcome of the trial.

Conclusion: The attachment of properties against Rs. 11 crores is upheld, with the condition of maintaining status quo on possession until trial conclusion.

Issue (c): Interim relief and possession of attached properties pending trial

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant sought equitable relief to retain possession of the properties attached against Rs. 11 crores. The respondent did not object to this prayer.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal allowed the status quo to be maintained on possession, and restrained the appellant from alienating or transferring the properties pending trial. This balanced the need to protect the investigation and prevent dissipation of assets, while safeguarding the appellant's interim rights.

Conclusion: Possession remains with the appellant subject to the condition of no alienation or transfer, and release of properties is subject to trial outcome.

Issue (d): Effect of impugned orders on trial court proceedings

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal clarified that the observations and findings in the impugned orders are not binding on the trial court. The trial court is to independently adjudicate the matter based on evidence led during trial.

Conclusion: The impugned orders shall not prejudice the appellant in the trial, ensuring fair trial rights.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Provisional Attachment Order of the property against alleged proceeds of crime of Rs. 2.84 crores is in ignorance of the fact that appellant was entitled for receipt of money on transfer of shares to Shri Pavitra Kothari... once shares were transferred to him in lieu of payment, what could have been attached by the respondent is to be the shares of M/s Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. received by Shri Pavitra Kothari treating it to be the proceeds of crime, if the proceeds of crime was involved."

"The amount was received through the banking channel and has been accounted with disclosure of the source but ignored by the respondent."

"So far as order of attachment of the properties against the proceeds of crime of Rs. 11 Crores is concerned, it is not interfered. The parties would maintain status quo in regard to the possession as is existing today. The appellant would otherwise not alienate or transfer the property till conclusion of the trial."

"This order would not be taken adverse to the appellant and any observation in the impugned orders would not be binding on the trial Court rather it would pass the order independently based on the evidence led before it."

Core principles established include the necessity of proper examination of the source of funds before attachment, the distinction between legitimate receipt of consideration for shares and proceeds of crime, and the preservation of trial court's independent adjudicatory role. The Tribunal balanced interim relief with the need to protect the investigation and assets.

---