TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Sudhir Kumar Jain, CMD, Syndicate Bank had indulged in corrupt practices by extending undue favour to the various private companies and corporate houses by granting sanctions to their loan proposals in lieu of illegal gratification. In some cases, the negotiations regarding illegal gratification were done directly with private companies by Sh. S.K. Jain and in some cases the same was done through middlemen. The illegal gratification was transferred to Sh. Vineet Godha, Sh. Puneet Godha through illegal channels by middleman Sh. Vijay Pahuja @ Soni & others in two instalments of Rs. 17 lacs and Rs. 33 lacs and the same was recovered/seized by CBI during search operations. Consequent upon the aforesaid information with regard to the involvement of Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain, CMD Syndicate Bank in corrupt practices by extending undue favour to the various private companies and corporate houses by granting sanctions to their loan proposals in lieu of illegal gratification, the Central Bureau of Investigation, AC-1, New Delhi, registered an FIR dt. 01.08.2014 against the said Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain Ex - CMD Syndicate bank and others for the offences committed by him which are punishable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Management Committee of the Bank on 15.03.2014. However, out of the sanctioned amount, release of only Rs. 150 crores was allowed. Sanction letter was issued to the branch on 18.03.2014, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the proceeds of the loan would be utilized for sharing up of New Working Capital/normal expenditure. As per the sanction order, initially Rs. 200 crores was to be released by Syndicate Bank. The balance amount would be released only after full tie-up only during financial year 2015-16 after obtaining permission from Corporate Office, Bangalore. It was revealed that Syndicate Bank had released Rs. 150 crores to M/s BSL till 31.03.2014. Repayments of principal of Rs. 2.25 crores and Rs. 100 crores (due on 24.06.2014) and interest in 7 other term loans sanctioned to M/s BSL had become overdue as on 30.04.2014. Due to shortage of funds the company had failed to make these payments. The details in this regard are given in the complaint. Due to shortage of funds, M/s BSL failed to make timely payments of interest and principal in the above accounts. A meeting of JLF (Joint Lender Forum), officials of SBI and M/s BSL, was held on 23.04.2014, wherein it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranch to the Corporate Office. Vide letter dated 24.05.2014, Corporate Finance Branch, New Delhi conveyed to M/s BSL that- since disbursement of Canara Bank, Union Bank had not started and the same from State Bank of Patiala and Andhra Bank was less than expected and only 14 out of the 16 banks had sanctioned their respective loan amounts, it should expedite the sanction from the other banks for uniformity in disbursement. This was also informed to its Corporate Office. Vide letter dated 18.06.2014 and 24.06.2014, AGM, Corporate Finance Branch, Syndicate Bank informed M/s BSL about outstanding dues of Rs. 22.38 crores as on 18.06.2014 and an overdue of Rs. 100 crores in term loan and requested the company to make the payment and regularize its account. Vide letter dated 02.07.2014, AGM, Corporate Finance Branch, Syndicate Bank, New Delhi informed M/s BSL that an amount of Rs. 134.63 crores was outstanding and requested the company to make the payment and regularize the account. M/s BSL, however neither replied to the mentioned letters, nor deposited any money. Vide note dated 11.07.2014 from the Corporate Finance Branch, Syndicate Bank, New Delhi, duly recommended by the Regional O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014 and 01.08.2014. From the disbursed amount, the Branch, besides serving the overdue amount, recovered interest in six other accounts of M/s BSL, where interest was overdue since 30.04.2014. Management Committee approved release of an additional amount of Rs. 170 crores including Rs. 50 crores in two instalments of Rs. 130 crores (till September, 2014) and Rs. 40 crores (till 3rd quarter of 2014-15). As per CBI investigation, it was revealed that Sh. Neeraj Singhal, Vice Chairman and Managing Director M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. (BSL) provided the telephone number of Sh. Vijay Pahuja @ Soni (a middleman of S.K. Jain) to Sh. Pankaj Tiwari (an employee of M/s BSL) and asked him to deliver Rs. 50 lakhs meant for some Vicky of Bhopal. The number of Vijay Pahuja @ Soni was provided by Sh. S.K. Jain to Sh. Neeraj Singhal. As directed, Sh. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari contacted Sh. Vijay Pahuja @ Soni from landline phone no. 71194000 of M/s BSL and enquired about message related to Vicky. However, Shri Vijay Pahuja Soni pleaded ignorance about any such message. This was reported by Shri Pankaj Tiwari to Shri Neeraj Singhal, who in turn contacted Shri S.K. Jain and informed him of the developments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....obile number of Vijay Pahuja @ Soni alongwith Rs. 50 lacs. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari also provided the token number (Rs.10 Currency Note) and mobile number of Vijay Pahuja @ Soni to Ankit Goel to pursue the matter as he was to travel to Mumbai on 01.08.2014. Investigation further disclosed that on 1.08.2014, Ram Partap Nath conveyed the token number and mobile number of Soni to Prakash who in turn gave it to Ajay Bijlani. Sh. Ajay Bijlani on his part informed Prakash that delivery of cash at Bhopal would be made by Chetan Jaiswani @ Chintu, another Aangadiya. He also provided him with the mobile number of Chintu. Sh. Prakash thereafter gave the number of Sh. Chetan Jaiswani @ Chintu to Sh. Ram Pratap Nath who passed the same to Sh. Ankit Goel. Ajay Bijani thereafter conveyed the mobile number of Soni and the token number to Sh. Chetan Jaiswani @ Chintu and told him that Rs. 50 lac was to be delivered to Soni. As directed by Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Shri Ankit Goel contacted Vijay Pahuja Soni on his mobile phone and requested him to note down a number to be contacted for delivery. Vijay Pahuja Soni however requested him to SMS the same, which was duly done. Upon receipt of this message, Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Original Complaint No. 971/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the same. The Adjudicating Authority after going through the complaint and relied upon documents issued the notice to the defendants. After receiving their replies and hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority declined to confirm the PAO vide order dated 24.09.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant ED filed the present appeal. 3. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for appellant ED contended that Rs. 50 lacs were seized by the CBI in a trap case which was pursuant to the secret information that Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain was accepting illegal gratification from Shri Neeraj Singhal, so as to restrain from declaring the account of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). She pointed out that after investigation, CBI already filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons and charges are also framed against them and presently the said criminal case is pending for prosecution evidence. Accordingly, she stressed that there is a prima facie case against the said accused persons (herein respondent) and hence the said recovery amount of Rs. 50 lacs is clearly the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut Section 23 of PMLA of 2002 which provides that: It is pertinent to mention here that Section 23 of PML Act, 2002 provides that "Where money laundering involves two or more inter-connected transactions and one or more such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money laundering, then for the purposes of adjudication or confiscation under Section 8, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority, be presumed that the remaining transactions form part of such inter- connected transactions". Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the impugned order and thereby confirm the PAO No. 07/2018 dated 31.03.2018 passed by the complainant ED (herein appellant). 4. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 submitted that the amount recovered from the possession of Shri Puneet Godha was in fact the sale proceeds of the property. He contended that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 is made out against the respondents and the matter is sub- judice. He contested that the Respondent No. 3 was working as MD, Syndicate Bank and has no connection or link with any proceeds of crime. Moreover, there is noth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndents herein. The Adjudicating Authority in para 14 of impugned order at internal page no.74 made the conclusion as under:- "On a thorough perusal of the PAO, Complaint, relied upon documents, the investigations conducted by the RD and the statements recorded u//s 50 of the PMLA and on careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant and Defendants undersigned comes to the prima facie conclusion that the Defendants have not committed the Scheduled Offence, generated proceeds of crime and laundered them. No doubt the properties attached are not proceeds of crime or value thereof and are not involved in money laundering. Undersigned therefore orders not confirmations of the above Provisional Attachment Order". The above observations in the concluding para of the impugned order is apparently false and incorrect, seeing the fact that charges are already framed against the respondents as there was a prime facie case against them in the charge sheet case filed by CBI. We failed to understand that on what basis the said observation was made by the Adjudicating Authority, which is also contrary to the record. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have taken the....