Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of immovable properties belonging to the appellants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is sustainable on the grounds that the properties were acquired out of proceeds of crime and whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly confirmed the provisional attachment.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the investigative record, ECIR and statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 and found that three appellants acted as agents/directors involved in promotion and collection of deposits for illicit schemes of the accused company, and that two other appellants (their wives) failed to demonstrate independent legitimate sources for the acquisition of properties. Admissions in statements indicated that consideration for properties derived from commissions connected to the illegal schemes. The Tribunal applied the statutory framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding attachment of proceeds of crime and adoptive findings that a recipient of proceeds may be subject to attachment even if not separately named as an accused, and that earnings derived from involvement in the illicit scheme cannot be treated as legitimate source.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the appellants' properties was validated and the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld; the appeals are dismissed and no interference is warranted.