TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.463 Are, in the name of Abdul Majeed valued at Rs. 6,00,000/-. II. Property in the name of Shakeela w/o Abdul Kalam and Ali Sathar Haji: The property in the deed 2608/2015, Vazhakad SRO, in Pulikal Village, Vazhakad, Malapuram, Kerala valued at Rs. 8,25,000/-, Re. Sy. Nos. 57/1-17.03 Are, 61/1-4.30 Are, 56/1 -0.15 Are (Total Area 21.48 Are) which jointly held by Shakeela w/o Abdul Kalam along with Ali Sathar Haji. 2. As per the facts of the case, National Investigation Agency, Cochin received information on 11.03.2010 regarding detection of fake Indian Currency notes to the tune of Rs. 24,16,000/- by DRI, Cochin from the baggage of Gopinath K.. NIA registered FIR No. 655/2010 u/s 489(C) IPC and subsequently case was sent to CB-CID where the case was re- registered as Crime No. 447/CR/OCW-II-10/EKM and Section 486(B) of IPC was also added. Later-on, investigation was taken over by NIA as per order No. 11034/36/2011-IS-IV dated 06.01.2012 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. NIA recorded FIR No. 03/2012/ NIA/HYD dated 28.01.2012 and thereafter filed chargesheet on 14.02.2014 before the Hon'ble Special Court for NIA, Ernakulam against Abdul Majeed @ PRO Majeed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al activity relating to the scheduled offence. He submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case of import of fake Indian currency notes by the DRI official Cochin, as well as NIA, and the statements of appellant were extracted on 17.12.2012, 18.12.2012, 06.07.2015 & 18.07.2016 under force, threat, coercion and the same were not given by the appellant voluntarily. He contended that the statements do not indicate or establish that the appellant has utilized the proceeds of alleged crime with respect to FIR No.3/2012/ NIA/HYD for the purpose of the construction of building in the property in question, since the alleged fake money was already seized by DRI officials at the time of arrest of one Mr. Gopinath K. He argued that the property no.1 in question registered at Ponnani Sub-Registrar office, Malappuram district in Kerala was gifted to the appellant Abdul Majeed by his mother Pathumma vide gift Deed No.3111/15 dated 17.06.2015, which does not involve any monetary consideration, except love & affection as the only consideration. This property was purchased in the year 1958 by the appellant's mother from Mrs. Mariyumma vide Reg. Deed No.634/1958 dated 09.07.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e released being acquired by the appellants much prior to the alleged predicate offence? Whether the said properties are not covered within the definition of proceeds of crime, as defined u/s 2(1)(u) of PMLA? ii) Whether the appellants have discharged their burden of proof under Section 24 of PMLA, regarding the fact that the properties have been acquired by them using legal source of income? iii) Whether the respondent has no power to provisionally attach the property of the appellants, on the ground that no offence is made out under section 3 of PMLA? 6. Coming to the first issue of the appellants that- Whether the properties in question attached by ED, needs to be released being acquired by the appellants much prior to the alleged predicate offence? Whether the said properties are not covered within the definition of proceeds of crime, as defined u/s 2(1)(u) of PMLA?. To analyze this issue no. i), it would be gainful to refer to the definition of "proceeds of crime" given under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act of 2002 and is quoted as under- "2. Definitions -(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (u) "proceeds of crime"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or to 01 July 2005 may also become vulnerable and subject to action under the Act. However, enforcement action against such properties would have to satisfy the tests and safeguards as propounded in Axis Bank with the learned Judge observing that in such a situation it would have to be established that the person accused of money laundering had an interest in such property at least till the time that he indulged in the proscribed criminal activity. The learned Judge further observed that bona fide rights acquired by third parties prior to the commission of the predicate offense would stand saved." Further, this Tribunal has also given an elaborate judgment on the issue in the case of Sadananda Nayak v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar in FPA-PMLA-5612/BBS/ 2023 delivered on 14.10.2024, where all the judgments on the issue have been considered and thereby this issue was decided in favour of Respondent ED. Further, in view of the para 68 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein, it is held that- "68. It was also urged before us that the attachment of pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regarding the fact that the properties have been acquired by them using legal source of income? The appellants have contended that the properties have been derived using legitimate sources of income. On behalf of appellant no.1, it is argued that the house was gifted to appellant no.1 by his mother via gift deed No.3111/15 dated 17.06.2015, and the construction of the house is said to have been completed in 1990 and renovated in 2005 out of the accumulated savings during the period from 1985 to 2005, of the appellant, as well as his brother late Mohammed, and thus, the same are not proceeds of crime. However, appellant no.1 has not filed any gift deed and the statements of bank accounts to show sufficient savings for construction of house. No valuation report is filed to proof the old construction and renovation, as mentioned in para no.3 above. In fact, the appellant Abdul Majeed has stated in his statement that the construction of house was completed in the year 2005 and total cost of construction was around Rs. 6,00,000/-, which is contrary to his contention regarding construction being completed in 1990, and thus, the same is just an afterthought strategy to save the attached ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave any explanation for the amount paid for the said property purchased and she claimed unawareness for that, hence, the same can also be assumed to have flown from her husband, who is an accused and the appellant no.3 can be presumed to have purchased the said property using the amount in her bank account which is allegedly the money she received from her husband in her bank account. Further, the appellant no.2 has contended that he jointly purchased the property in question and made a payment of Rs. 4 Lakhs towards it, which was stated by him to have been acquired from the sale of property of his father. However, no details or documentary evidence with regard to the same were produced by him. In lieu of the same, the said property is also rightly considered as a proceed of crime and thereby attached. Hence, the appellants have not discharged their burden of proof under Section 24 to explain the legal source of income for acquisition of the properties. Thus, this issue is also decided against the appellants. 8. Now, coming to the third issue, iii) Whether the respondent has no power to provisionally attach the property of the appellants, on the ground that no offence is made out....