TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisional Attachment Order dated 20.12.2023. 2. It is a case where 33 FIRs were registered against Ajit Kumar Gupta, Director of Anee Group of Companies, appellant Mrs. Neeharika Singh and other associates in different States. The allegation against Ajit Kumar Gupta was that after constitution of a proprietary firm in the name of M/s Anee Bullion Trader in 2010, he started trading in bullion, real estate and securities employing a modus operandi luring unsuspected individuals to invest in Schemes offered by him and his entities. The fraudulent actions resulted in defaults on promise to return the money with high returns. The gist of the allegations levelled in the FIRs are as under: "(i) Funds were collected fraudulently by Mr.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tments in bulk through a cooperative society named M/s. Eye Vision Credit Co-operative Society. The society, comprising 7 members, facilitated the collection of money from individual members, promising them interest. Subsequently, Mr. Ajit Kumar Gupta and his entities availed loans totaling around Rs 40-45 Crores from the cooperative society, supposedly for purchasing gold. Default on the cooperative bank ensued, and FD Certificates of M/s. Eye Vision Credit Co-operative Society Limited were provided to investors to delay payment of invested amounts and assured returns. (ix) Funds collected from investors, both directly in M/s. Anee Bullion group of companies and through the account of M/s. Eye-Vision Credit Co-operative Society, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rime. It was nothing but repayment of the amount. The reference of the bank statements of the appellant was given to show transfer of money from her account from time to time and accordingly there was no justification to cause provisional attachment of the properties. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that appellant's husband Ajit Kumar Gupta was running the firm successfully from the year 2010 and if some default was committed subsequent to the year 2019, there was no justification to provisionally attach the property belonging to the appellant having no connection with the commission of crime. The part of the FIRs containing frivolous allegations against the appellant have been quashed by the court on challenge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Ajit Kumar Gupta and his company, apart from others. The modus operandi of the company run by Ajit Kumar Gupta has been given which shows that after luring the investors, the company failed to make the payment, rather committed default and, therefore, number of investors registered the FIRs. The appellant was also named as an accused with several allegations. However, the counsel for the appellant submitted that many frivolous allegations have been set aside by the court. The further argument was that appellant was a Govt. servant and thus not involved in commission of crime and, therefore, there was no reason to provisionally attach her properties. It is more so when she was having source to acquire the properties. 10. The argument w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were purchased. It is for the reason that even if the appellant transferred money to her husband in the years 2010-13 or onwards, the possibility of its utilization during the intervening period cannot be ruled out and in that eventuality what remains is to transfer the proceeds of crime by the main accused Ajit Kumar Gupta. The reverse burden of proof is on the party against whom allegations have been made which appellant failed to discharge. The lame excuse taken by the appellant to show her inability to produce the bank statements of her husband cannot be accepted. It is not that the appellant has made distance from her husband or vice versa enabling her to get the bank statements of her husband. In absence of evidence led by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 929 is relevant and is quoted hereunder: "65. As aforesaid, in this backdrop the amendment Act 2 of 2013 came into being. Considering the purport of the amended provisions and the experience of implementing/enforcement agencies, further changes became necessary to strengthen the mechanism regarding prevention of money- laundering. It is not right in assuming that the attachment of property (provisional) under the second proviso, as amended, has no link with the scheduled offence. Inasmuch as section 5(1) envisages that such an action can be initiated only on the basis of material in possession of the authorised officer indicative of any person being in possession of proceeds of crime. The precondition for being proceeds of crime i....