The Calcutta High Court has held that charges under section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA ), 2002 on fraudulent obtaining of money cannot exonerate before a full-fledged trial.
Mili Ghosh Versus, the applicant prayed for setting aside the impugned order under Section 45 read with Section 3 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the impugned order passed by the said Court in ML Case No.1 of 2007 under similar provisions, respectively, wherein the petitioner’s applications for discharge from the said cases were rejected.
The two letters of a complaint lodged with the CBI, by the officials of the State Bank of India and the Oriental Bank of Commerce alleging that one Mr Gopinath Das, the proprietor of M/s Hindustan International had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with some persons and in furtherance to the said conspiracy had prepared forged and fabricated documents were then submitted to the banks as a result of which a sum of Rs. 12,28,22,463/- was allegedly misappropriated from the State Bank of India and a sum of Rs. 6.76 crores was allegedly misappropriated from the Oriental Bank of Commerce.
Mr Kundalia, counsel representing the respondents, submitted that a part of the laundered money was parked with the husband of the petitioner in his account. This was, in turn, used by the petitioner and her said husband for purchasing a property.
Section 3 of the PMLA Act, 2002 practically brings within the ambit of money laundering any activity or process connected to an act of money laundering. A person can be hauled up for money laundering if he either directly or indirectly attempts to indulge in or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
It was found that the fraudulent transfer of shares in this company started the process by which money was illegally laundered. Thereafter, the present petitioner was absent from the picture for the immediately succeeding sequence of events. She comes in again when a part of the tainted money parked in her husband’s account was used as consideration for purchasing a property in their joint names.
A single judge bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held that “Even if the petitioner wants to deny any knowledge of the money used is obtained by fraudulent means, she has to do the same if and once a trial commences. Before that, on the present facts, it may have to be presumed, in terms of Section 24 of the PML Act, that such proceeds of crime were involved in money laundering.”
“As prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case, she cannot be exonerated from the charges at this stage and before a full-fledged trial commences.”, the court held.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
