AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of freezing order dated 02.05.2017 and 15.05.2017 for the various properties as given below :- A. NRE/NRO account in his name, in joint account with his wife for various properties as given below in ICICI Bank Kolkata and following 13 fixed deposit A/cs. S. No. Account No. Address Amount Freezed 1. 090113000088 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 2. 090113000504 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 3. 090113000663 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 4. 090113000662 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 5. 090113000661 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 6. 090113000660 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 7. 090113000659 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 8. 090113000140 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 9. 090113000070 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 10. 090113000329 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 11. 090113000259 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as on date 12. 090113000172 20 Peach Garden, Singapore Balance as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the aforesaid properties with immediate effect under Section 17 (1A) of PMLA, 2002 on dated 02.05.2017 and 15.05.2017. The respondent filed the O.A. for permission to retain the aforesaid seized record, documents and also for continuation of freezing orders with respect to the property, etc. 5. It is seen from the record that notice was issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the appellant, who appeared through counsel and filed reply on the ground as revealed from the impugned order. 6. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority allowed the O.A., the operative portion of the impugned order is as below: "6. The order of retention/ freezing shall: (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under corresponding law of any other country before competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India as the case may be; (b) become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority." 7. The aforesaid impugned order is under challenge before this Tribunal inter-alia on follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. (e) All the relevant relied upon documents have already been provided to the appellant along with the O.A. bearing no.98/2017 filed before the Adjudicating Authority. 9. The learned counsels for both the parties orally made their submissions on the aforesaid grounds. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the legal and factual issues raised above and in addition relied on Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA, 2002 and submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 10. With regards to the question of non-supply of copy of ECIR, the respondent relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Versus Union of India" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. The learned counsel for the respondent specifically relied upon the following paras of the said judgment and submitted that in view of the judgment (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent is not bound to supply the copy of the ECIR. "177. Suffice it to observe that being a special legislation providing for special mechanism regarding inquiry/investigation of offence of money-laundering, analo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g satisfaction of reason to believe that the person is guilty of money laundering offence, if revealed before the inquiry/ investigation required to proceed against the property being proceeds of crime including to the person involved in the process or activity connected therewith, may have deleterious impact on the final outcome of the inquiry/investigation. So long as the person has been informed about grounds of his arrest that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money laundering. In any case, upon filing of the complaint before the statutory period provided in 1973 Code, after arrest, the person would get all relevant materials forming part of the complaint filed by the Authority under Section 44(1)(b) of the 2002 Act before the Special Court. 179. Viewed thus, supply of ECIR in every case to person concerned is not mandatory. From the submissions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating "civil action" of "provisional attachment" of property being proceeds of crime." 11. In addition to above, with regards to non-supply of copy of the FIR, it is submitted that the contents of the FIR are reflected in the O.A. so, there is no necessity of separately supply the copy of the same. 12. Heard on the above issues. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra), the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding non- supply of copy of ECIR, has no merit and with regards to non-supply of copy of FIR, when the respondent is saying that the contents of the FIR * have been reflected in the O.A. then it is felt that the purpose of asking for the copy of FIR is served and in this respect there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the issues are answered. 13. It was also contended that the relied upon documents have not been provided to the appellant as a result of which he could not know the exact allegations against him and hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... .- (1) (2) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after- (a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (1); (b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf; and (c) taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under subsection (1) are involved in money-laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money- laundering. (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub- section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under subsection (1) of section 5 or retention of property or 3[record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property]....