TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ica. He was arrested in the month of April, 2019, in the United Kingdom on extradition request of the US authorities on drug trafficking and money laundering charges. The applicant entered into a plea agreement with the US authorities on 05.01.2024. He was convicted, but his sentence was reduced to 60 months. On 19.04.2024, the applicant was released. On his arrival in India, he was interrogated and finally arrested. It has been the case of the Enforcement Directorate ("ED") that as per the information received from the US authorities, the applicant along with his brother Parvinder Singh was operating an international drug trafficking group named as the Singh DTO (Drug Trafficking Organization). That used vendor marketing sites on the dark web, numerous free advertisements on clear websites, and a network of narcotic and controlled-substance distributors and distribution cells to sell drugs. In exchange, the Singh Organization received drug trafficking proceeds in the form of crypto currency and laundered these proceeds through crypto currency wallets. The Singh Organization received the drug trafficking proceeds through the sales on dark web markets, then laundered those proceeds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersonal use. 10.2.23 Further, the remaining PoC in the instant case i.e. 4250 Bitcoins is still untraceable and is suspected to be in possession of the Banmeet Singh or Parvinder Singh, investigation in respect of the same is undergoing." 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has already been tried and convicted by the US authorities with regard to all BTC, which he had. It is argued that, in fact, the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted for drug trafficking as well as money laundering. The applicant, it is argued, cannot be prosecuted in India again. 7. Reference has been made to Article 14 sub-clause 7 of the International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which reads as follows:- "Article 14 sub-clause 7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." Human Rights Act, 1993 "2. Definition.- (1) In this Act, unless the contex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... easily be thrust upon the persons who were being proceeded against on account of their actions in conflict with the provisions of the 1973 Act. Such statements ought not to be readily believable, unless there is independent corroboration of certain material aspects of the said statements, through independent sources. The nature of the corroboration required, would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, it is apparent that the appellant A. Tajudeen and his wife T. Sahira Banu at the first opportunity resiled from the statements which are now sought to be relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate, to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant. We shall now endeavour to examine whether there is any independent corroborative evidence to support the above statements." (g) In the case of Kunal Gupta (supra), it is observed as follows:- "8. ...................................................Also, it is trite law that statement under section 50 of the PMLA cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence and can at best lend corroboration to the material available against the accused in course of investigation." (h) In the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. In Para 153, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "153. In other words, the authority under the 2002 Act is to prosecute a person for offence of money laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a stand-alone process. (l) The proffer statement made by the applicant before the US authorities is not a substantive piece of evidence. It cannot be made basis for conviction. (m) In support of his averment, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the No. 92-2205 United States Courts of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, in US Vs. Acosta-Ballardo, 8F.3d 1532 (10th Cir. 1993) Decided Nov 9, 1993, in whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 11. Learned counsel for the ED would also raise the following points in his submission:- (i) The applicant has not been prosecuted and convicted for 8131 BTC, which he had. In United States, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted with regard to 3838 BTC, which he had surrendered. (ii) Before the US authorities, the applicant had given a statement that he had split his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quasi-judicial authorities in India, while exercising their judicial and quasi-judicial powers, it cannot be said that the same will be ipso facto binding on such Courts and authorities. If we hold that such a judgment of a foreign Court for an offence committed in that country, is binding on the Courts and authorities in India while exercising their judicial and quasi-judicial powers, it will amount to directly or indirectly enforcing the judgment of the foreign Court. What is the effect of such order of conviction, would depend upon variety of factors such as, nature of the proceedings, purpose for which the said order of conviction needs to be taken into consideration, nature of conviction and effect thereof on the proceedings, nature of consequences of the ultimate decision to be taken in the said proceedings, are some of the factors which will have to be taken into consideration while deciding as to how much and what weightage has to be given to such judgment and order of conviction. We are of the FA-922-13.sxw considered view that, no hard and fast rule can be laid for that purpose. The Courts and authorities, while exercising their judicial and quasi-judicial powers will ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 F.2d 1402, 1409 (7th Cir. 1992), or evidence that he presented through the testimony of others, see United States v. Richardson, 130 F.3d 765, 778 (7th Cir. 1997), United States v. Dortch, 5 F.3d 1056, 1068 (7th Cir. 1993), contradicted the proffer." 12. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 13. Admittedly, in the United States indictment of the applicant was for three charges as follows:- (i) Conspiracy to Distribute and Possesss with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (21 U.S.C.§ 846). (ii) Conspiracy to Import Controlled Substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960 (b) (2) and (b) (3), and 963) (iii) Money Laundering Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1956 (h) ). 14. Thereafter, the appellant entered into plea agreement in the United States which, inter alia, records as follows:- "Defendant agrees to turn over all seed phrases and passwords and to assist in the transfer to U.S. Government crypto currency wallets, all of the 8,1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States, monetary instruments of funds etc. It covers everything, transferring from outside or into the United States from United States to outside and in Section 18 U.S.C.1956 (h) is conspiracy for it. But the fact statements attached with the plea statements as quoted hereinabove, is with regard to bringing in or transferring the money or cryptocurrency etc. within the Southern State of Ohio or elsewhere. Does not elsewhere qualifies other adjoining States of Ohio? Can this word "elsewhere" be extended to include India? If the word "elsewhere" does not indicate India, does not it mean the applicant was not convicted for transferring the proceeds of crime from outside India to India? These and many more related questions may fall for scrutiny during trial 20. The question is, even if a person is convicted in the United States can he be prosecuted in India again? In the case of Probodh (supra), the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had considered the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Panchal (supra) and answered the reference whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... SINGH said Parvinder was obligated to assist him receive and future forked assets. SINGH also said that one of the airdropped coins was SEMUX, which had said was CMAX in the earlier proffer." 22. What is being argued is that the proffer and statement under Section 50 of the Act is not a substantive piece of evidence. There admissibility is not in dispute, but their evidentiary value depends on as to whether such statement finds independent corroboration or not? 23. Not only this, on behalf of the ED it is being argued that the act of splitting per se attracts the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. This aspect would also require examination. The Court restrains to make any conclusion on it, at this stage. 24. It is the case of the ED that huge amounts were transmitted by the applicant in his or his family members in India through foreign accounts. The applicant did not have any other source of income from 2011 to 2017 and the applicant did not reveal as to how he got the money. It is argued that during the same period, the applicant was into a drug trafficking business. To some part he has accepted it. Therefore, remaining transactions are also from drug trafficking and ....