TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the facts of the case, ECIR/05/DZ/2012 dated 07.02.2012 is registered by the Enforcement Directorate and for initiating the investigation under PMLA. The ECIR pertains to the scheduled offences i.e. 120-B of IPC r.w. Section 7, 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act and substantive offences thereunder. The ECIR was recorded against Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and others, namely, 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. Search was conducted on 13.01.2018, and thereafter documents and articles were seized as mentioned in para no. 1 above from the premises of appellant company. 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.) are not genuine and bonafide business transactions. Individuals involved in receiving the said suspected funds were S/Shri Karti P. Chid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d funds not only in India, but in foreign countries also in which either CBN Reddy or S. Bhaskararaman or some foreign national or Advantage companies in Singapore, Spain etc. Shri S. Bhaskararaman is CA and is looking after the financial matters of KPC since the year 2005-06. He is engaged in the execution of the directors of KPC and holding the assets on his behalf in and outside India. He is also instrumental incorporating companies of KPC and enter into financial transactions with the companies based in and outside India for the purpose of receiving funds under the colour of consultancy fee. He is doing these activities with the assistance of other associates of KPC. He is the main person instrumental in the receiving of funds for KPC and deployment thereof in various financial transactions i.e. transforming the illicit assets into untainted funds by declaring them under legitimate financial deals which are not fact. 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, wall hangings/paintings seized vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplaint filed by ED in ECIR/05/DZ/2012 dated 07.02.2012 held that the case of the Enforcement Directorate is groundless. Thereafter, the ED did not seek leave of the Special Court to conduct further investigation in the case relating to the FIPB approval. Ld. Counsel for the appellant company submitted that the respondent ED did not record the "reason to believe" in terms of Section 17(1) of PMLA, on the basis of material in its possession, that the appellant company, whose premises is searched, was in possession of any records relating to money laundering. The application filed before the Adjudicating Authority and the seizure memo (inventory of items) containing the details of 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 company submitted that there was no material before the Adjudicating Authority for forming reason to believe that the appellant company has committed an offence of money laundering u/s. 3 of PMLA or the appellant company is in proceeds of crime. Even according to the Adjudicating Authority, the investigation is still going on. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t filed a Prosecution Complaint dated 13.06.2018 in Complaint Case No. 18/2019 against the accused persons. The Special Court, PMLA has taken cognizance of the above two mentioned Prosecution Complaints on 27.11.2011 and has issued summons. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merits. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the accused were Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, Mr. Kalanidhi Maran and others. The name of appellant does not figure in the above FIR. Also, in Chargesheet in RC 22(A)-2011-DLI dated 29.08.2014 filed by ED in the Aircel Maxis case, the name of the appellant 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) ....