2025 (4) TMI 1793

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts of the case, ECIR/05/DZ/2012 dated 07.02.2012 is registered by the Enforcement Directorate and investigation under PMLA is continuing. The ECIR pertains to the scheduled offences i.e. 120-B of IPC, Section 7, 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The ECIR is against Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and others. A criminal prosecution is also registered against Dayanidhi Maran, Kalanidhi Maran, Ralf Marshall, T. Anandkrishnan, M/s Maxis Communications, Astro All Asia Networks PLC, M/s Sun Direct Pvt. Ltd. and other unknown officials / persons or commission of offence u/s. 3 of PMLA, as was indicated in the ECIR dated 07.02.2012. On 13.01.2018 the residential premises of Sh. Bhakararaman at T-1, 3rd Floor No. 33, Krishnapadmam, 1st Cross Street, Kodamballkam, Chennai 24 was searched from where documents/ digital evidences were recovered and seized as detailed in Panchnama. It is revealed that Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Chess Management Services are the companies of Karti P. Chidambaram, wherein S. Bhaskararaman is also involved. It is also believed that the financial transactions by these two companies amounting to Rs. 26,00,444/- and Rs. 90.09 lakhs (Rs. 1.16 crore approx.) ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etail having connections of KPC and his associates with Aircel Ltd., Maxis Berhad, Malaysia, Astro UK, Sequoia Capital, Westbridge Capital, Mauritius based companies and any other overseas destination. It is important to obtain the records from the above premises where it is strongly suspected to be available, for the ongoing investigation, in the situation none are responding to summons issued under PMLA and no records are submitted. Upon receipt of the OA dated 02.02.2018, this Authority entertained the reasonable belief in terms of Section 8(1) and ordered on 12.02.2018 issuance of the show cause notice inter-alia to show cause as to why the documents, Seagate Hard Disk (500 GB), Toshiba Hard Disk (1 TB) seized vide Schedule of Panchnamas dated 13.01.2018 recovered from the premises of the appellant at Flat 3-B, 3rd Floor, Block-III, Bajaj Apartment, 7/4 Nandanam Extension, Main Road Chennai - 600035 be not permitted to be retained in terms of Section 17(4) of the PMLA. The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied with the allegations made in the OA coupled with the relied upon documents, formed the reasonable belief and thereby issued the Show Cause Notice to the defendant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the records seized from the premises of the appellants, are the only materials which were filed by the Respondent before the Adjudicating Authority. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no material before the Adjudicating Authority for forming reason to believe that the appellant has committed an offence of money laundering u/s. 3 of PMLA or the appellant is in proceeds of crime. Even according to the Adjudicating Authority, the investigation is still going on. Therefore, the statutory requirement for having reason to believe u/s. 8(1) of the PMLA are not satisfied. Ld. Counsel in this regard relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case J. Sekar & Ors. V. Union of India, W.P. (C) 5320/2017 decided on 11.01.2018. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Respondent ED has no jurisdiction to conduct any investigation into the commission of a scheduled offence. It is only the prosecuting agency registering an FIR in relation to the scheduled offence and proceeds of crime are identified by the prosecuting agency that the Respondent ED will get the jurisdiction to conduct investigation under PMLA to identify the recipient of the proceeds of cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant does not figure in the above chargesheet. However, we are of the view that that the person whose properties have been attached need not be an accused person. The law on this issue now stands settled by the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (27.07.2022) MANU/SC/0924/2022. The relevant text from the judgment is quoted hereunder: "65......... The sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the Accused named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily being Accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Such a person besides facing the consequence of provisional attachment order, may end up in being named as Accused in the complaint to be filed by the authorised officer concerning offence Under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. 69. We find force in the stand taken by the Union of India that the objectives of enacting the 2002 Act was the attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime which is the quintessence so as to combat the evil of money-launder....