Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PMLA ACT in Mohamed Ibrahim Sait vs The Deputy Director on 15 October, 2019Matching Fragments
3 This Court is informed that investigation is in progress and with regard to one of the FIRs, charge sheet has been filed. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner is the nucleus of these FIRs and charge sheet.
4 In the aforesaid backdrop, first respondent initiated proceedings under 'The Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002' (Act 15 of 2003' (hereinafter 'PMLA Act' for brevity) and issued a provisional order of attachment dated 29.03.2019 being provisional order of attachment No. 3/2019 in F.No.ECIR/CEZO-II/16/2017 qua some of writ petitioner's immovable properties. To be noted, this provisional order of attachment has been assailed in the instant writ petition and the same shall hereinafter be referred to a 'impugned attachment order'. To be noted, this impugned attachment order is under Section 5(1) of PMLA Act. Pursuant to the impugned attachment order, first respondent filed a complaint before the second respondent which is the adjudicating authority under section 5(5) of http://www.judis.nic.in PMLA Act. This complaint is OC No.1130/19 dated 25.04.2019 and this complaint under section 5(5) of PMLA Act is also assailed in the instant writ petition. This complaint by first respondent before second respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned complaint'.
9 Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel for writ petitioner also submitted that for making the impugned order of attachment, there should be 'reason to believe'. This expression 'reason to believe' has been explained by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in order dated 25.01.2016 in W.P.(C)No. 1925 of 2014 in Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement. Placing reliance on paragraph 43 of Mahanivesh Oils case, it was submitted that there could not have been any 'reason to believe' that writ petitioner is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with alleged 'proceeds of crime'. To be noted, 'proceeds of crime' within the meaning of PMLA Act.
(b)The alleged loss caused is Rs.58.50 Crores and Rs.
21.00 Crores, but the value of the property attached is barely Rs.4 Crores;
(c)Writ petition itself is premature as impugned attachment order is under section 5(1) of PMLA Act as orders have to be passed under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of PMLA Act regarding confirmation of attachment which has not happened;
16 This Court finds that the matter does not end there. Even if the adjudication and outcome of the adjudication under section 8(2) is adverse to http://www.judis.nic.in the writ petitioner or in other words, even if the impugned attachment order which is provisional, is confirmed, writ petitioner has right of appeal to the appellate authority under section 26 of PMLA Act and thereafter, a further appeal to High /Court under section 42 of PMLA Act. Therefore, there are statutory remedies available under PMLA Act itself qua a hierarchy of Fora. In the instant case, in the factual matrix of this case, these aspects turn heavily on facts and therefore, this court deems it appropriate to hold that it should be best left to the provisions in PMLA Act referred to herein to take their course. To be noted, this logic applies to the impugned complaint also.