TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO). Brief facts of the case: 2. So far as the appellant is concerned, his following moveable and immovable properties have been attached which otherwise has been given in Table-A of the PAO and quoted thus: TABLE "A" Sr. No. Details of property Managed by Owner 1. Bank Balance available in account no. 25126002 of Cayman National Bank, Douglas Isle of Man, in the name of Om Sodhi. M/s Suntera (IOM) Limited Sukhminder Singh Sodhi @ Om Sodhi 2. Bank Balance available in account of M/s Fair Bet Sports Limited having IBAN Number: CZ1482200003421639000006, Beneficiary BIC Code (SEPA region): PAERCZPIXXX M/s Suntera (IOM) Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) and accordingly an FIR was registered bearing Number 85/2015 dated 25.03.2015. It was for commission of offence under Section 465, 466, 468, 471, 479, 420, 34 read with 120(B) of IPC. A charge-sheet against the accused in reference to those provisions has been filed before the Ld. Count of Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 37, Esplanade Court, Mumbai. 5. The investigation under PMLA revealed that Shri Girish Patel started cricket betting racket in the name of "Maruti Ahmedabad" in partnership with Kiran Jayantilal Mala and accordingly they were found involved in commission of offence not only under the IPC but for Gambling Act also. The appellant came into picture after issuance of the summons to attend the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Counsel for the appellant submitted that no predicate offence has been disclosed against the appellant and accordingly no reason to cause PAO qua the appellant. The allegations against the appellant at the best could have been involvement in Gambling, though, was denied, however, for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the appellant was involved in gambling, it is not a predicate offence so as to invite proceedings under the Act of 2002. The Adjudicating Authority failed to consider this aspect while confirming the PAO. 8. It is, further, submitted that allegations against Foreign Credit Card was not against the appellant but the main accused and for that reason also, the appellant could not have been implicated in reference to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in regard to non-application of mind of the authority caused the PAO. Arguments of the Counsel for the respondent: 12. Elaborate arguments in reference to the issues raised by the Counsel for the appellant were made. It would be referred while recording finding on the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant to avoid repetition of the same facts and for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 13. The brief fact pertaining to the case has been given in the opening paras of the order which shows that accused were involved in online international cricket betting and therefore an FIR was registered against them which was not for the offence under the Gambling Act but for the offence under the IPC and majority of such offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....achment, the three bank accounts were attached with complete description of the accounts and the bank. However, the respondent caused attachment of all movable and immovable properties of the entities i.e. M/s Fair Bet Sports Limited, M/s Sports Target BV and M/s Mountbet Holdings Ltd. in vague term because description of their properties has not been given. The argument proceeded with the further statement that there exists no movable and immovable properties in the hands of those entities. We have to analyze the issue aforesaid because record reflects attachment of movable and immovable properties of entities, named above, which is said to be an order without application of mind. We are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant ....