The High Court of Madras has held that Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002permissible even if Petitioner indirectly involved in offence of money laundering.
The petitioners, TD Naidu, father of Tataji and Sonia obtained huge loans from Andhra Bank and Union Bank of India for starting a medical college in the name of DD Medical College in Tiruvallur also took amounts to an extent of Rs.16.65 crores from students, for giving admission without even getting the necessary permission from the Medical Council of India. Several FIRs were filed by the Inspector of Police.
In the supplementary complaint, the details of the properties standing in the name of Tataji and Sonia have been set out and they include not only immovable properties but also high-end vehicles, including a Mercedes Benz.
The petitioners filed a petition to quash the prosecution against them before the Additional Special Court for PMLA Cases, the earlier avatar of which is C.C.No.31 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court.
It was very well confirmed that Ms.T.D.Sonia has been indirectly involved in the offence of money laundering and knowingly is a party in the possession, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime and projecting the same as untainted property. Ms. T. D.Sonia has been guilty of the offence of money laundering under section 2(1)(p) r/w section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
It was observed that even if the accused was not involved in the criminal activity that generated the proceeds of crime, but, if he is involved in some way or the other with the proceeds of crime so generated, he would be liable to be prosecuted under Section 3 read with 4 of the PML Act.
Justice P N Prakash and Justice Rmt Teekaa Raman have held that “we do not find any infirmity in the orders dated 29.10.2021 and 02.05.2022 passed by the trial Court in the discharge petitions in Cr.M.P.Nos.11655 of 2019 and 8009 of 2021, respectively, warranting interference by this Court. Similarly, there are prima facie materials against Sonia and therefore, the prosecution against her cannot be quashed.” The Court dismissed the petition with no costs.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
