The appellant argued that no criminal activity was attributed to him or his business, nor was he named in the FIR or chargesheet filed by the CBI, and therefore, the proceedings u/s 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, were non-existent and illegal. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had seized the cash and jewelry based on oral and documentary evidence available, indicating that the appellant had allegedly earned illegal commission as an intermediary in the import of DAP by IFFCO and IPL from JPMC, despite no requirement for an intermediary. Although the appellant was not named in the FIR or chargesheet, the ED could proceed with search and seizure under the PMLA to investigate further. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that since the proceedings were at the investigation stage, it would be improper to release the highly liquid cash and jewelry.
The appellant argued that no criminal activity was attributed to him or his business, nor was he named in the FIR or chargesheet filed by the CBI, and therefore, the proceedings u/s 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, were non-existent and illegal. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had seized the cash and jewelry based on oral and documentary evidence available, indicating that the appellant had allegedly earned illegal commission as an intermediary in the import of DAP by IFFCO and IPL from JPMC, despite no requirement for an intermediary. Although the appellant was not named in the FIR or chargesheet, the ED could proceed with search and seizure under the PMLA to investigate further. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that since the proceedings were at the investigation stage, it would be improper to release the highly liquid cash and jewelry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
