In a recent case, the Madras High Court held that the Enforcement Directorate is not required to establish where the money eventually went as the concealment of proceeds of crime itself is an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ), 2002.
KC Chandran, his wife and his company filed the revision petition against the order of the Special Court refusing to discharge them from a money laundering case. The prosecution case against the petitioners was that after getting a lease to quarry minerals in Melur in the year 1989, they entered into a criminal conspiracy and illegally quarried granite stones from nearby lands and non-lease patta lands.
The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us
The department of Geology and Mining had valued this illegal quarrying to the tune of Rs. 436.88 crore. The case was registered against them for various offences under IPC and Section 4 ( Mischief causing damage to property ) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Section 6 r/w. 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substances Act. Since offences under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the IPC and Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Explosive Substances Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED registered the ECIR. The property that was allegedly brought from the illegal profits was also attached by the ED.
The petitioners argued that though they were given the lease in 1989, they handed over the quarry to one Palanichamy in 1999 for Rs. 60 Lakh and thereafter had no connection with the mining activity. Regarding the property, it was submitted that it was purchased from untainted money. Ot was further argued that identification of the proceeds of crime was sine qua non in PMLA proceedings and since the money alleged in the present case had not been identified, no complaint would lie. Thus, contenting that no offence had been made out, they sought to be discharged from the case.
The ED, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners as lease holders could not have entered into any transaction for handing over the quarry. It was also submitted that the sale deed of the property did not reflect the actual market value of the property.
The court observed that since concealment of proceeds of crime itself would constitute the offence of money laundering, the petitioners could not take a defence that the complaint will not lie unless the proceeds of crime are identified. The court was also satisfied that prima facie, illicit mining had taken place and the prosecution in the scheduled offence was still pending.
It was viewed that the presumption under Section 24(b) of the Act would be applied in the present case and it was upon the petitioners to rebut the same.
The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us
A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that “Since concealment of the proceeds of crime is an offence, the accused can be held guilty of the same. The Enforcement Directorate need not demonstrate where the money eventually went. The accused after engineering a disappearing act cannot be heard to contend that they must be exonerated because proceeds of crime has not been identified. If a rat has escaped into a hole, one can only point to the hole. The rat might even have exited through another end. The defence cannot argue that unless the rat is found, there cannot be a prosecution.”
Mr. A. Robinson appeared for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. L. Sundaresan,Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. K. Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
