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 coal block allocation letter constituted property and could form the basis of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the share application money and share premium collected by the appellant were proceeds of crime liable to attachment notwithstanding the timing of receipt, the absence of mining, and their deployment for business purposes.
Issue (i): Whether the coal block allocation letter constituted property and could form the basis of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The definition of property under Section 2(1)(v) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is expansive and includes intangible rights and interests. The allocation letter conferred a valuable commercial right on the appellant and was treated as property involved in the offence. In view of the proved scheduled offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy, the allocation obtained by misrepresentation was held to be property derived from criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence and therefore within the ambit of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act.
Conclusion: The coal block allocation letter was rightly treated as property and as tainted property/proceeds of crime.
Issue (ii): Whether the share application money and share premium collected by the appellant were proceeds of crime liable to attachment notwithstanding the timing of receipt, the absence of mining, and their deployment for business purposes.
Analysis: The Court held that the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not confined to direct gains from actual mining. The money raised by share capital and premium was found to have been collected on the strength of the prospect of coal block allotment and was inextricably linked to the tainted allocation. The fact that some receipts preceded the formal allotment, that no coal was mined, or that the funds were deployed for legitimate business purposes did not alter their character where they were traceable directly or indirectly to the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence. The broad definitions of property and proceeds of crime, together with the proved predicate offences, supported the attachment.
Conclusion: The share application money and share premium were correctly treated as proceeds of crime and remained attachable.
Final Conclusion: The attachment was upheld, and the appellant's challenge failed because the connected property and funds were held to be derived, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to the scheduled offences.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, intangible rights arising from a tainted allocation and any funds derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence constitute proceeds of crime, even if no separate physical exploitation of the asset occurred and even if the funds were later used for legitimate purposes.
TaxTMI 
