TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "the Act of 2002"), a challenge has been made to the Order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 24.01.2024. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where provisional attachment of the properties was caused finding a predicate offence and recording of the ECIR in reference to FIR No. 43/S/2014 dated 05.06.2014 registered by the CBI/SCB, Kolkata for offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The Chargesheet followed by supplementary charge sheet was filed by the CBI wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded. The Appellants Purna Chandra Panda and Manoranjan Panda were instrument in collecting the money from the public in the guise of investments in certain schemes floated by the company. It was more specifically for issuance of preference shares of the unlisted company. Despite being an unlisted company, they exceeded the limit of shares to 49 persons. They distributed 1,55,21,000 preferences share to 3097 individuals without permission from the regulatory agencies, which was even the SEBI. 5. The funds received from the public were not used and returned, as promised, rather diverted and embezzled by the company and those involved in managing the affairs of the company which includes even the Appellants. The bank statement of M/s Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erties were acquired from the personal funds which were largely the salary and incentives received by them while working in the company. The bank statements of the Appellants show the withdrawal of Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- for purchase of those properties. In view of the above, the prayer was made to cause interference on the aforesaid grounds. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that Para 2.9 of the Provisional Attachment Order refers to hefty transfer/deposit to the accounts of Purna Chandra Panda and Manoranjan Panda but the statement of fact given therein does not indicate the date when such transfers were made. It is more so when it is involving Rs. 58,42,291/- and Rs. 44,07,081/-. It is with the furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rguments were raised on each issue raised by the Appellants and would be considered by this Tribunal while recording the finding on each issue. It is to avoid repetition of facts and for the sake of brevity. Finding of the Tribunal: 11. It is a case where FIRs were transferred to CBI in pursuance to the Order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401/2013 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 413/2013. The FIRs were initially registered by the State Police. Serious allegations exist against the Appellants and other accused persons for commission of offence not only under Sections 120-B, 420 and 409 IPC but under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant Purna Chandra Panda and Appellant Manoranjan Panda were the Vice-President and Assistant Vice-President of M/s Midas Touch Assets and Securities Ltd. respectively and actively assisted the co-accused persons including Soubhagya Kumar Samal, the Managing Director and Nirupama Samal, Director. They were involved in the conspiracy of luring public for investments in financial schemes floated by the company. The Appellants Purna Chandra Panda and Manoranjan Panda had diverted proceeds of crime out of scheduled offence and had acquired property in their name. 14. The statements of Appellants Purna Chandra Panda and Manoranjan Panda were recorded finding them to be the key persons in persuading the investors towards the issuance of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mer. He had no clear plan for the aforesaid. The Appellants still participated in the activity of the company knowing it well that they were involved in cheating the public and, therefore, cognizance of the aforesaid fact was taken by the Apex Court in two writ petitions preferred by Shri Subrata Chattoraj and Shri Alok Jena. 16. The investigation revealed that M/s Midas Touch Group of Companies was managed under the directorship of Shri Soubhagya Kumar Samal and his wife Smt. Nirupama Samal to run illegal activities along with Appellants Purna Chandra Panda and Manoranjan Panda to collect money from the public in the guise of issuing preference shares, though the company had not obtained necessary permission from the regulatory agencies....