TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-PMLA-4958-4961/PTN/2022 The batch of appeals have been filed under Section 26(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "the Act of 2002) against the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order dated 21.03.2022 and the corrigendum therein by the order dated 13.04.2022. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant Sanjay Kumar Singh was an Executive Engineer in PHED in the State of Bihar. On 03.09.2013, Economic Offence Unit (EOU), Patna registered an FIR bearing No. 38/13 for the offence under Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendment in the Act of 2002 could not have been considered to be proceeds of crime. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order dated 21.03.2022 and the corrigendum therein by the order dated 13.04.2022. 5. It is also stated that as against the disproportionate property of Rs. 1,83,53,969/- given in the charge-sheet, the respondents have attached the property of the appellants worth of Rs. 1,48,81,900/-. 6. The counsel for the appellants has not raised any other argument for challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority. 7. The appeal has been opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that after r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession and claiming it to be an untainted property, he shall be guilty of offence of money laundering. In the instant case, FIR was registered in the year 2013 for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 followed by ECIR which was much subsequent to the amendment in the Act of 2002 in the year 2009 to include offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be a scheduled offence. In view of the above, the plea raised by the appellant regarding prospective application of the amendment of the Act of 2002 in the year 2009 cannot be accepted. The disproportionate asset was projected to be an untainted proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This was determined after taking into consideration the expenditure and investment by the family to the tune of Rs. 3,01,78,703/-. The appellant and his family members was having total income of Rs. 1,18,24,734/- only. 13. A legal issue has been raised in reference to amendment in the Act of 2002 by a Notification issued in the year 2009. It is a fact that prior to the amendment in the Act of 2002, the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not a schedule offence. It was made schedule offence in the year 2009 for the first time. In the light of the fact aforesaid, the argument of the counsel for the appellants is that the properties attached by the respondents cannot be considered to be the proceeds of crime having acq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommission of a serious offence of money laundering. Further, as held in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act 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 offence of money laundering is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] [Substituted for the words "proceeds of crime and projecting" by Act No. 2 OF 2013] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering". 16. The provision quoted above refers to when a case of money laundering would be made out. If the case on hand is considered in the light of Section 3 of the Act of 2002, the offence would be made out when a person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assist any one or more process or activity connected with the crime. It includes the possession of the property apart from its concealment and acquisition. It can be when property is projected to be untainted. The factum of poss....