AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....@ Mulama @ Loki, is a notorious criminal operating in Bangalore City and outskirts from the year 1985. He has been accused in 15 criminal cases of murder, attempts to murder, extortion and criminal intimidation. He had extorted large sums of money from innocent persons on account of the fear so created by him, and the victims of extortion had failed to lodge any complaint due to fear. The husband of the appellant had invested the proceeds of crime directly or indirectly in his own name and in the name of his wife, Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi, Appellant and relatives and associates. The value of proceeds of crime comes to about Rs. 1,53,40,000 approximately. 3. Though there were 15 criminal cases against Shri Lokesh @ Mulama, the husband of the appellant, however, majority of those cases were during the period before the introduction of PMLA. However, in five cases pertaining to offences under Sections 302, 307, 399 & 402 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 25 & 30 of Arms Act which were allegedly committed after the introduction of PMLA and which offences are Scheduled Offences under PMLA. Those five cases are briefly described as under:-- 4. In these circumstances an investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on commission basis and his income used to be Rs. 20,000/- per month. He was not assessed to income tax and had no PAN number. He stated that his wife Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi, Appellant had an annual income of Rs. 4 lakhs from civil contract works and that the property in question was purchased by paying Rs. 32,20,000/- by cash. The total cost of construction estimated by M/s. Megha Constructions was Rs. 78,03,494/- and they received Rs. 57 lakhs, and the balance receivable was Rs. 21,03,494/-. Appellant further explained that she had done all the transactions in cash only. 6. Appellant thus claimed the acquisition of the property and construction of a three storey building from her own funds which was inferred to be devoid of truthfulness and credibility and probability. The officials of the respondent had issued Summons under section 50(2) of PMLA to the following persons for their further examination:-- Shri Lokesh @ Mulama; Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi; Shri P Krishnamurthy; Shri Poppanna @ Chetti Babu and Shri Govindappa @ Kumar. However, none of these persons had complied with the above summons and had appeared. The summons to Shri Lokesh @ Mulama& Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi were returne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir plea was not believed in the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, it was inferred prima facie that the Income Tax Returns and the Statements of Income and Expenditure of Appellant were fabricated i.e. Tailor-made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted properties. By filing Income Tax Returns and paying Tax on the purported income declared thereon, the culpability of the appellant and her proceeds of crime were not regularized. 10. Appellant had not appeared before the respondent and had sent the written submissions. She pleaded that income tax returns need to be filed only when there is a taxable income. Non-filing of returns cannot be the ground for the proceedings under PMLA. It was further contended that the Income Tax Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are central Acts and once the income tax returns filed by her has been accepted by the concerned Central Government Authority, another Central Government department cannot reject the same and the papers filed along with them. The other argument advanced by the Appellant was that the respondent has relied upon certain document relating to crime wherein Mr. Lokesh is cited an accused. The said criminal case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant has filed the copies of the judgments by which her husband was acquitted. It was stated on behalf of the appellant that against the acquittal of the husband of the appellant, no appeals have been filed. On 25.7.2014 this Tribunal directed the respondent to take necessary information and instruction regarding the acquittal of the husband of the appellant. The appellant has filed the copy of judgment dated 29.09.2012 in S.C. No. 876 of 2012, State of Karnataka Vs V. Lokesh @ Mulama acquitting the husband of the Appellant; judgment dated 23.7.2012 in S.C. No. 629 of 2012, State of Rajagopala Nagar Police Station Vs Lokesh @ Mulama acquitting the husband of the Appellant; judgment dated 31.3.2011 in S.C. No. 705 of 2006 and S.C. No. 706 of 2006, State by Police Inspector Vs Rama & ors acquitting the accused in the said cases; judgment dated 8.2.2013 in S.C. 693/2012, State of Karnataka Vs Lokesh alias Mulma, acquitting the husband of the appellant and judgment dated 9.1.2013 in S.C. No. 203 of 2012 and S.C No. 1077 of 2012, State by Rajarajeshwarinagar VS P. Ravindranath & ors. acquitting the husband of the appellant and all other accused. 15. On 10th September, 2014, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act." 18. Proceeds of crime is defined under clause (u) of section 2(1) of the PMLA which is as under: "(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property;" 19. Section 8(5) of the PMLA as it existed prior to amendment expressly provided for automatic vacation of attachment of property, if conclusion of a trial resulted in acquittal of the concerned person. Section 8(5) of the PMLA as it existed prior to 15.02.2013 reads as under:-- "Section 8(5). Where on conclusion of a trial for any scheduled offence, the person concerned is acquitted, the attachment of the property or retention of the seized property or record under sub-section (3) and net income, if any, shall cease to have effect." 20. From the reading of these provisions it necessarily follo....