TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DER By this appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "the Act of 2002"), a challenge has been made to the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 15.10.2024. Facts of the case: 2. The brief facts giving rise to the case pertain to registration of various FIRs by CBI and Economic Offences Wing from time to time during the period 2015 to 2023. Initially, 24 FIRs were registered followed by 50 FIRs against the promoters of M/s Unitech Ltd. It was alleged that M/s Unitech Ltd. had collected Rs. 14270 Crores from more than 29800 home buyers promising them assured return on their investment. It was found that around 5063.50 Cror....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestment from the home buyers and was diverted for non-mandated purpose. So far as the appellant company is concerned, allegation does not exist for commission of crime but it is said to be the recipient of the proceeds of crime and, therefore, provisional attachment of the FD for a sum of Rs. 16,13,63,913/- was caused. It was finding that the appellant company had received a sum of Rs. 10 Crores from M/s Unitech Ltd. on 04.10.2004 and 29.10.2004 in two trenches of Rs. 5 Crores each. It was against the sale of 11 shops to be developed by the appellant company. The payment of the aforesaid sum was made through the cheques, however, it is a fact that those shops were never transferred to M/s Unitech Ltd. and at the same time, the amount of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e should remain. It may either by the accused or the person to whom such proceeds has been transferred or diverted. In the instant case, the appellant company was not recipient of the proceeds of crime at any time so as to attach FD for the value equivalent to the proceeds. The respondents failed to consider as to what can be attached is the "proceeds of crime", as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act of 2002 which has three limbs but the present case does not fall in either of the limbs. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of Rs. 10 Crores was received by the appellant company towards the sale of 11 shops. However, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised by the appellant. It was submitted that initiation of the proceedings under the Act of 2002 by the respondents was in pursuance to the direction of the Apex Court in the petition preferred by Bhupinder Singh. The Hon'ble Apex Court initially appointed M/s Grant Thorton India LLP for a forensic audit and when report was submitted, parted with the ED for further action. The respondents accordingly recorded the ECIR and caused investigation to trace out the proceeds of crime to protect the money of the home buyers and accordingly provisionally attach the property. In the process, it was found that a sum of Rs. 10 Crores was transferred by M/s Unitech Ltd. with the appellant company in the year 2004 by making payment in two trenches. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter came up before the Apex Court on a petition preferred by Bhupinder Singh. The Apex Court appointed M/s Grant Thorton India LLP for forensic audit for 74 projects of M/s Unitech Ltd. The forensic audit report was submitted before the Apex Court by M/s Grant Thorton India LLP. On the receipt of the forensic audit report, the Apex Court directed various agencies, including the respondent ED to take up the matter as per the provisions of law. 14. The respondent ED recorded the ECIR and caused investigation under the Act of 2002. It was found that M/s Unitech Ltd. has collected huge amount from the home buyers between the year 2006-07 to 2014-15 and out of which 40% amount was diverted for non-mandated purpose and thereby the home buyers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e raised by the respondent ED is that FD for Rs. 16,13,63,913/- has been attached for the value thereof. The argument aforesaid is not tenable for the reason that appellant had not received proceeds of crime, rather it was not even diverted to provisionally attach the property of equivalent value in case of non-availability of the proceeds. It is a classic case where the respondents have failed to establish that appellant company had received any amount out of the proceeds of crime i.e. the invested money of home buyers started from the year 2006-07 to 2014-15. The provisional attachment of the property for equivalent value can be caused if the proceed is not found available with the accused or the person but receipt or diversion of the pro....