The Delhi High Court has held that merely because proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA Act ) have been dropped against some individuals does not drop proceedings against co-accused.
Brij Bala Kapur, the Petitioner has approached the Court challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) passed by the Respondent. The Provisional Attachment Order ( PAO ) is that an FIR was registered by the Detection of Crime Branch, Surat Police for the offenses under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( “IPC” ) based on a complaint received from ICICI Bank, Surat against M/s R. A. Distributors Pvt. Ltd and its Directors alleging that the company had prepared 17 fake bills of entry and presented the same before the ICICI Bank for making foreign outward remittances.
There was also a registered by the Detection of Crime Branch, Surat Police against M/s Harmony Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., M/s Agni Gems Pvt. Ltd., and their Directors for similar offenses.
The allegations against the accused are that they hatched a well-planned conspiracy by forming different companies/partnership/proprietorship firms and lured people by offering them a side income of Rs.10,000-12,000 just to obtain their photos, ID proofs and residence proofs and enlist them as Directors of M/s RA. Distributors Pvt. Ltd, M/s Riddhi Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s M.B. Offshore Distributors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Maa Mumba Devi Gems Pvt. Ltd., M/s Hem Jewels Pvt. Ltd., etc.
It was stated that some persons who were lured with money were called to the office of the accused located at Office No. 416417, Opera House, Panchratna Building, Mumbai. Bank employees were present at the location with documents required to open new bank accounts and such forms were filled and signatures were taken.
After the accounts were opened, the amounts were credited on different occasions with the help of one Prafulbhai Mohanbhai Patel in Axis Bank accounts of M/s Aarzoo Enterprise, M/s G.T. Traders, M/s Vandana & Co., etc., through RTGS/NEFT and after that, the said amount deposited in Axis Bank were transferred to the accounts in ICICI Bank, Ring Road Branch, Surat.
It was mentioned that the Petitioner’s husband Mr. Pankaj Kapur and the Petitioner’s son Mr. Satchit Kapur are directors and shareholders of M/s Kross Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner is only a housewife.
The petitioner has efficacious statutory remedies to prove the nature of the acquisition of assets and to ventilate their grievances. Furthermore, at the stage of provisional attachment, the person concerned is not divested of the property but is only prevented from dealing with the same till orders are passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8(2) of the act.
The Adjudicating Authority has the power to look into the facts of the case of the Petitioner before concluding whether the properties in question are proceeds of crime or not. It has been contended by the Petitioner that one accused has been discharged and proceedings against one accused have been diminished because of his death.
A single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “Merely because proceedings have been dropped against some individuals does not mean that the proceedings against the Petitioner should or will be dropped. The offenses under the PMLA Act are distinct from offenses under the IPC. The companies can still be convicted for the predicate offense and the Petitioner can be prosecuted under the PMLA Act.” The Court dismissed the writ petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
