TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the appellant and was repaying it from time to time. The transaction between him and Chandra Shekhar were very common and continued for few years. He had no idea that Chandra Shekhar would be depositing huge amount in his account without his knowledge. It is by misusing his position to get appellant involved in the case where huge amount sent by the Hudco towards land compensation was diverted in favour of those whose land was never acquired. The appellant Shamshad was having qualification only till 4th Class, thus was unaware about the online transaction from which money was channelized. The case was otherwise registered and transferred to the CBI against Naresh Kumar Shoekhand and Ors. and upon investigation by the CBI, a chargesheet followed by supplementary chargesheet was filed in the court of Special Judge Panchkula. The appellant cooperated in the investigation pursuant to the FIR yet ECIR was recorded on 05.03.2021 by the Enforcement Directorate. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 50 of the Act of 2002. The properties having no nexus with the crime has been attached. They were acquired prior to the commission of crime. The challenge to the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the facts of this case, it was urged that appellant Shamshad received a sum of Rs. 1,33,92,000/- out of the compensation meant for those whose land was acquired. The compensation was transferred to the account of the appellant and many similarly placed whose land was not affected by the acquisition. To secure the proceeds of crime for equivalent value, the property of the appellant and others was attached. The Adjudicating Authority has specially referred to the case of the appellant with further clarification about attachment of property for the equivalent value. Thus, the argument raised by the appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has passed a cryptic order is not correct. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal detail discussion of the issues. The detail arguments in reference to the facts was submitted and would be referred while recording finding. It is to avoid repetition of same facts to make the order bulky and accordingly, we have considered the rival submission and scanned the matter carefully. It is a case where land was acquired for widening of roads and accordingly, HSIIDC and NHAI were under obligation to pay the compensation. HSIIDC transferred Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... d. Rs. 35,00,000/- were transferred to M/s. S.R. Buildwell (Partnership firm owned by M/s Rajesh Sankla and Shamshad.) e. Rs. 3,23,000/- were transferred to M/s Acumen Travels. In the statement under Section 50 of the Act of 2002, the appellant had admitted that on the receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,33,92,000/-, he had withdrawn Rs. 69,50,000/- in cash and said to have given to the person from whom he borrowed the funds however, the appellant fail to substantiate the fact aforesaid. He could not give description of the person and any evidence to prove divergence of fund as a loan or advance. It is also that 11 Lakhs was diverted to M/s AS Fashion was later on withdrawn in cash and Rs. 3,23,000/- was towards travel charges for his visit to abroad. It has also been noted that he had purchased plot no. A, Amrit Puri, East of Kailash in the year 2014 in partnership with Rajesh Sankla for a sum of Rs. 99,50,000/- in the name of M/s SR Buildwell. The flats, the shops and basement were constructed thereupon. In the year 2016-17, a Real Estate project was also taken up in collaboration of Rajkumar Sharma. In the statement of Chandra Shekhar, he had not supported the statement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....econd and third kinds of properties mentioned above would ordinarily be "untainted property" that may have been acquired by the suspect legitimately without any connection with criminal activity or its result. The same, however, are intended to fall in the net because their owner is involved in the proscribed criminality and the tainted assets held by him are not traceable, or cannot be reached, or those found are not sufficient to fully account for the pecuniary advantage thereby gained. This is why for such untainted properties (held in India or abroad) to be taken away, the rider put by law insists on equivalence in value. From this perspective, it is essential that, before the order of attachment is confirmed, there must be some assessment (even if tentative one) as to the value of wrongful gain made by the specified criminal activity unless it be not possible to do so by such stage, given the peculiar features or complexities of the case. The confiscation to be eventually ordered, however, must be restricted to the value of illicit gains from the crime. For the sake of convenience, the properties covered by the second and third categories may be referred to as "the alternative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the property prior or subsequent to the commission of crime. The elaborate judgment has been given by this Tribunal in the case of Ayush Kejriwal Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata in Appeal bearing No. FPA-PMLA-4358/KOL/2021 dated 01st May, 2024 and the relevant paras of the said judgment are also quoted hereunder: "13. To analyse the issue as to whether it is incumbent upon the respondents to first find out whether the documents of the property seized from the possession of the person is directly or indirectly the proceeds out of the crime. The issue can be dealt with after referring to provisions of the Act of 2002 as well as the object of the Act. The Act of 2002 was enacted out of the International convention to address the offence of money laundering. To curb the offence of money laundering, the enactment was brought and for the aforesaid, the Act of 2002 is divided into many Chapters. Chapter I refers to the Definitions. The definition of Section 2(1)(u) 'proceeds of crime' is relevant and is quoted thus: "(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to ....