TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 9,00,000/-. ii. Land totally measuring 51 Cents at Survey No. 259/4B 2 at Keelavalavu Village acquired vide Document No. 3200/2009 dated 25.06.2009 by M/s OGPL (D-1) for a value of Rs. 1,02,000/- and having a guide line value of Rs. 1,50,000/-. iii. Land and Building at Survey No. 5/7 at Manalur, Door No. 1/64 totally measuring 54 Cents acquired by document no. 3690/2008 dated 12.09.2008 of SRO, Madurai North Joint - I for a value of Rs. 7,25,000/- and a guideline value of approximately Rs. 15,00,000/- (D-2) iv. Agricultural land at Survey No. 80/1 of Chinthamani Village, totally measuring 93 cents acquired by document no. 3854/2009 dated 03.06.2009 of SRO, Madurai South Joint -I for a value of Rs. 1,86,000 and a guideline value of approximately Rs. 2,80,000/-. (D- 2) v. Agricultural land at Survey No. 92/2A, 92/2A3, 93/2A of Chinthamani Village, totally measuring 107.5 cents acquired by document no. 3855/2009 dated 03.06.2009 of SRO, Madurai South Joint - I for a value of Rs. 2,15,000 and a guideline value of approximately Rs. 3,25,000/- (D-2) vi. Agricultural land at Survey No. 96/4 of Chinthamani Village, totally measuring 52 cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a value of Rs. 4,06,000 and a guideline value of approximately Rs. 6,10,000/-(D-2) xv. Balance of Rs. 1,37,186/- lying in the Fixed Deposit Account No. 530401010031007 in the name of M/s OGPL (D-1) with M/s Corporation Bank, West Masi Street Branch. 2. As per the facts of the case, the Directorate of Enforcement received an information from Superintendent of Police, Madurai vide Letter No. C. No. 31652/SP-MAD/2013 dated 11.07.2013 dated 11.07.2013 regarding registration of cases for illicit quarrying of granite in Madurai District and registration of FIR against M/s Olympus Granite Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter M/s OGPL) and its Directors vide FIR No. 161/2012 dated 06.08.2012 by the Keelavalavu P.S. and the preparation of the chargesheet against accused persons on 05.07.2013 for commission of offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 447, 379, 409, 411, 420, 434, 468, 471, 304(ii), 109 & 202 of IPC and Section 3(a), 4(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and substantive offences thereunder. Shri A Parthiban, Village Administrative Officer, Keelavalavu filed a complaint befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Director and officials of TAMIN and the accused have been charged for offences as above having caused loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 256.44 Crores on account of illegal mining and wrongful gain for themselves. On the basis of the said information, ED recorded ECIR No. CEZO- 01.13.2013 dated 18.09.2013, for initiating investigation for the offence of money laundering and for tracing out the proceeds of crime. During the course of investigation, confessional statements have been recorded from the accused viz. Manikandan, Balasubramani, Mahoharan, Aiyappan, Raghupathy, Chokalingam, Shanmugam, Selvakumar and also from Shri Nagarajan, Director of M/s OGPL during the period covering 10.08.2012 to 23.02.2013 and the copies of the statements were forwarded. Pursuant to the above proceedings in the aforesaid ECIR and in view of the confessional statements and Chargesheet filed by the Police, Directorate of Enforcement passed the Provisional Attachment Order No. 06/2019 dated 23.04.2019. Thereafter, Original Complaint (OC) No. 1141/2019 dated 06.05.2019 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, after filing of the OC, the Adjudicating Authority i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the 3 acres of land at Survey No. 4244/2207 was purchased on 20.09.2007 by payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- while guideline value is of Rs. 9 lakhs, which is natural as the appreciation of value of the property takes place over years. This fact shows that the property was purchased in 2007, which is much prior to the commission of scheduled offence. Similarly, property at S.N. (ii), i.e. land measuring 51 cents formed part of the property at Survey no. 259/4b2 at Keelavalavu village acquired by document no. 3200/2009 was purchased vide sale deed dated 25.06.2009 for value of Rs. 1,02,000/, while guideline value is shown of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same was thus also purchased prior to the scheduled offence. The same was detailed by the appellant as below: The appellant company was carrying on the mining activities with proper permission from the authorities concerned and also after executing the lease deed with government which the company had obtained for a period of 20 years valid till 12.08.2028. The quarrying started in 2009 and continued till early part of 2012 and the same was carried out as per rules and regulations. As seen from the Original Complaint itself, the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g points during its investigation for money laundering: - i) Prima facie incriminating evidence against the culprits for commission of the schedule offence; ii) Quantum of proceeds of crime generated by commission of crime/ predicate offence; iii) Proceeds of crime laundered, or likely to be laundered; iv) If proceeds of crime are laundered, then the mode of layering of the same, or the trail of POC; v) If proceeds of crime are already dissipated, then the other properties of the culprits which can be attached, in absence of direct/ indirect POC; vi) The claimants/vendees of attached properties are genuine, or part & parcel of conspiracy. The first two points can be inferred by the ED on the basis of allegations made in the FIR and/or Police report under Section 173 CrPC and ECIR recorded by it. The ED has to confine its inquiry/investigation qua the remaining five points mentioned above. ED is not required to conduct any investigation for the predicate offence. However, ED cannot arrive at different conclusion qua the predicate offence, while conducting investigation for PMLA, as it is not a supervisory investigating agency ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....detailed above filed by the Madurai District Police, have committed "scheduled offences" and have caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 256.44 Crores to the Government Exchequer, on account of illegal mining and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. Further, by committing the said scheduled offences, the aforesaid appellants, along with the other accused persons subsequent to the wrongful gain in the said Mining Lease agreement, sold the granites in the international/domestic market in excess of the declared quantity and realised the sale proceeds. From the said proceed of crime the appellants purchased the properties in their names from Sl. No. 2 to 15, which were rightly confirmed for attachment and further adjudication and confiscation in terms of Section 8 of PMLA and the property at Sl. No. 1 was rightly attached as value of the attached property is quite less than the POC generated by the appellants. Further, the experts from the Department of Geology and Mining, based on the scientific and systematic study using "Total Station Survey" had furnished a report named as "Evaluation Report" for each quarry they have inspected and verified. It is revealed in the investigati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. (Supra) are quoted hereunder:- "105. It would be pertinent to recall that properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Act may not be completely immune from action under the Act in light of what this Court had held in Axis Bank. As was explained by the Court in Axis Bank, the expression proceeds of crime envisages both ―tainted property as well as "untainted property" with it being permissible to proceed against the latter provided it is being attached as equal to the "value of any such property" or "property equivalent in value held within" "the country or abroad". However, both the italicised categories would be liable to be invoked in cases where the actual tainted property cannot be traced or found out. It is only where the respondents are unable to discover the tainted property that they can take the statutory recourse to move against properties which may fall within the ambit of ―value of any such property or "property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad". To the aforesaid limited extent, properties purchased prior to 01 July 2005 may also become vulnerable and subject to action und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o give interpretation to the definition. In the light of the above, we find no force in the first argument when the proceeds out of crime was not available with the appellant, the property of equivalent value has been attached. In the light of the aforesaid, second limb of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been applied to attach the property of equivalent value. Thus, this ground raised by the appellants cannot be accepted. Hence, issue no. 4 is accordingly hereby decided against the appellants and in favour of respondent ED. 8. Issue no. v) & vi), are taken up together being inter-connected. The appellants asserted regarding the non-application of PMLA due to amendment of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. With regard to the same, we find that the relevant date is a date when the tainted property is projected to be untainted and as a consequence to it, the ECIR is recorded showing offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. The relevant date to find out the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering is when it is projected to be untainted property to make out an offence under section 3 of the Act of 2002. The issue aforesaid has been decided in the case of Dyani Antony ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he offence of money laundering at a later point of time. Even after the date of commission of the scheduled offence, the accused might be in possession of the proceeds of crime. He/she may continue to use or conceal such proceeds of crime or project/claim them as untainted property. Therefore, if a person continues to deal with proceeds of crime, even after the commission of the scheduled offence, he/she may be prosecuted under the PMLA." We further fortify our view in this regard, in lieu of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, wherein it is held that- 42. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in anyone of such p....