TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A-PMLA-1430/Kol/2016. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the offences alleged as against the appellants were committed allegedly for the period between June 13, 2005 to June 16, 2007. He points out that the schedule of offences to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were amended with effect from June 1, 2009. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) acted without jurisdiction in proceeding under the Act of 2002. 3. Relying upon the value of the properties appearing from the title deeds, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, such value was less than Rs.30 lakhs and, therefore, again the same were not within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act of 2002. 4. In respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of hearing of the appeals. Till date the proceeds of the crime are yet to be recovered. Appellants are in possession of the proceeds of the crime. 8. Stand of the appellants, if accepted, is one of a repayment holiday in respect of a loan obtained by the appellants from a public sector bank. 9. Transactions between the appellants and the Bank are not simplicities to on transactions. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Kolkata registered a first information report (FIR) against the appellants amongst other persons, with active facilitation by employee of the bank for commission of fraud on the bank. The first information report speaks of fraud being committed for the period from June 13, 2005 to May 16, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic sector bank, Indian Overseas Bank, of money legitimately belonging to Indian Overseas Bank, on the plea of obtaining loan by mortgaging several immovable properties. The proceeds of the crime remain with the appellants till date. It remained with the appellants on the date when the Schedule to the Act of 2002 was amended with effect from June 1, 2009. 13. Therefore, it cannot be said that, as on the date when the Schedule to the Act, 2002 was amended, the appellants were not in possession of the proceeds of the crime of an offence within the meaning of the Act of 2002 disentitling the authorities under the Act, 2002 to invoke the provisions of the Act of 2002 as against any of the appellants before us. 14. The plea, therefore, that b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amending Act of 2015 and Rs. 30 lakhs was substituted with Rs. 1 crore. 17. The proceedings initiated by ED as against the appellants herein relates to Section 2(1)(y) Clause (i) of the Act of 2002 which does not prescribe any pecuniary value. That apart, Clause (ii) prior to its amendment stood at Rs. 30 lakhs whereas, the proceeds of the crime are in excess of Rs. 5.24 crores. Even taking the value prescribed by way of the amendment to Clause (ii) then also, the proceedings are in respect of proceeds of crime far in excess of the prescribed limit. We hasten to add that, the proceedings of the ED against the appellants, are in respect of offences specified under Part A of the Schedule of the Act of 2002 which does not prescribe any pe....