TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants against the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 831/2017, (OC) whereby the properties attached by ED vide Provisional Attachment Order No.04/2017 (PAO) dated 23.09.2017 were confirmed. The details of the properties are as under: Sl. No. Details of the asset/property Owner of the assets/property Amount Involved in the Money Laundering and attached under PMLA 1 FDR No.018304501500281 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- having maturity date as 09.03.2018 held in Indian Overseas Bank Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (D-7) Rs.26,00,444/-is attached out of the total of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led a charge sheet in the Aircel Maxis case on 29.08.2014 under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 12 & section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused persons namely Sh. Dayanidhi Maran (A-1), the then MoC&IT, Sh. Kalanithi Maran (D-2), Sh. Augustus Ralph Marshall (D-3), Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan (D-4), M/s Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd.(A-5), M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc., UK (D-6), M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia (D-7) and M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Ltd., Mauritius (A-8). Ld. Special Judge, CBI (04)/PMLA Court in (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi vide order dated 02.02.2017 discharged the accused persons (Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8) both in CBI charge sheet and prosecution complaint ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egations mentioned in the original complaint along with the documents and the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, issued the Show Cause Notice to the defendants. After receiving the replies and hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Confirmed the PAO vide its order dated 12.03.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed the present appeals. 3. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the impugned order confirming the PAO was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.03.2018, without appreciating the fact that the present appellants are not named as accused in the chargesheet filed by the CBI on 29.08.2014 for commission of any predicate offences. He pointed out that ED filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mendment of 2018 clearly reflects that prior to the said amendment, there was no provision for attachment of the property during the investigation of the case under PMLA. Accordingly, he stressed that as on 12.03.2018, though the investigation was pending, but no prosecution complaint was pending against the appellants, the impugned order needs to be set aside in view of the pre-amended provision. He further argued that existence of the scheduled offence is a pre- requisite for any proceeding u/s 5 or 8 of the PMLA, whereas, the appellants are not named in the chargesheet filed by the CBI on 29.08.2014. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeal. No other issues are raised by the Appellants, except the above. 4. Ld. Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive any inference that the attachment can be made by ED or confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, only if the prosecution complaint is pending. As this view will likely to result in loss of properties, which are likely to be attached by ED for the purpose of confiscation, on account of transfer or alienation/mortgage etc. in the meantime, before the filing of the prosecution complaint, if the said properties are not attached immediately. The restriction of completing the investigation and filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days was inserted in Section 8(3)(a) w.e.f. 19.04.2018. Thus, the time starts running for filing the prosecution complaint from 19.04.2018 and not from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 12.03.20....