TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the attached properties needed to be released for want of any independent investigation by ED with respect to the predicate offence; (ii) Whether the attached properties needed to be released as the alleged predicate offences were committed during 1998 to 2002, prior to the coming into operation of PMLA; (iii) Whether there was no reason to believe on the part of ED under section 5(1) of PMLA that the appellants were in possession of proceeds of crime likely to be concealed or transferred; (iv) Whether the attached properties needed to be released as they were not acquired directly or indirectly from proceeds of crime; (v) Whether the property at 97-D Eastern Avenue Sainik Farms, New Delhi needed to be released on the plea that Aditi Chaturvedi was its owner and was not served notice in the attachment proceedings; (vi) Whether the jewellery attached as proceeds of crime could be treated as stridhan.
Issue (i): Whether the attached properties needed to be released for want of any independent investigation by ED with respect to the predicate offence.
Analysis: The relevant inquiry under PMLA is confined to the existence of a scheduled offence, the generation of proceeds of crime, their laundering, and the trail or layering of such proceeds. ED is not a supervisory agency over the police or CBI and cannot re-investigate the predicate offence or substitute its own conclusion on that offence, though it may examine the material for money-laundering purposes and point out apparent gaps brought to its notice during investigation.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of Respondent ED.
Issue (ii): Whether the attached properties needed to be released as the alleged predicate offences were committed during 1998 to 2002, prior to the coming into operation of PMLA.
Analysis: The relevant date for the offence of money-laundering is the date on which the tainted property is projected as untainted or is otherwise dealt with as proceeds of crime, not merely the date of the scheduled offence. Money-laundering is a distinct and continuing offence, and attachment under PMLA is not barred merely because the predicate conduct pre-dated the enactment, where the laundering activity continued thereafter.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of Respondent ED.
Issue (iii): Whether there was no reason to believe on the part of ED under section 5(1) of PMLA that the appellants were in possession of proceeds of crime likely to be concealed or transferred.
Analysis: The record disclosed material linking the appellants and their group entities to diversion and siphoning of loan funds, and the attached assets were found to be within the reach of the proceeds derived from the fraud. The statutory conditions for provisional attachment, including the apprehension that the property may be concealed, transferred, or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation proceedings, were held to be satisfied.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of Respondent ED.
Issue (iv): Whether the attached properties needed to be released as they were not acquired directly or indirectly from proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime includes not only the tainted property itself but also the value of such property. Where the actual tainted property is not traceable, attachment of property of equivalent value is permissible. The Tribunal relied on the settled interpretation that equivalent-value attachment can be invoked when the proceeds have been dissipated or are unavailable.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of Respondent ED.
Issue (v): Whether the property at 97-D Eastern Avenue Sainik Farms, New Delhi needed to be released on the plea that Aditi Chaturvedi was its owner and was not served notice in the attachment proceedings.
Analysis: The claimed ownership was not supported by proof of independent source of funds or bank records showing legitimate payment. The Tribunal treated the transaction as a sham arrangement made to shield the property after the bank fraud. It left open the appellant's liberty to pursue her claim before the competent PMLA court if a genuine title claim is established.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of Respondent ED.
Issue (vi): Whether the jewellery attached as proceeds of crime could be treated as stridhan.
Analysis: No documentary evidence was produced to establish the jewellery as stridhan. In the absence of proof, the claim could not be accepted and was left to be tested, if necessary, in the trial proceedings.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellants and in favour of Respondent ED.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the attachment and confirmation proceedings under PMLA and found no merit in the appeals. The dismissal was accompanied by a direction that coercive steps against the properties be restrained until conclusion of the criminal trials, except in exceptional circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Under PMLA, ED may proceed against property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable, and the offence of money-laundering is a distinct continuing offence whose commission depends on the laundering activity, not merely on the date of the predicate offence.
TaxTMI 
