Landmark Order by High Court of Madras under Section 8 sub-section 7 of PMLA 2002.
CANARA BANK - PMLA CASE - Crl. R.C. No. 448 of 2020 and Crl. M.P. No. 7507 of 2021 - ORDERED BY HIGH COUR OF MADRAS under Section 8 sub-section 7 of PMLA 2002
In an historic and land mark judicial decision, the High Court of Madras ordered the return of the amounts to Canara Bank can be established by marking a copy of the order of this Court. In the result, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed in the above terms. No costs. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed.
VIJAY MALLYA - KINGFISHER AIRLINES - RESTORATION OF PROPERTIES TO BANKS.
VIJAY MALLYA – KINGFISHER AIRLINES – PMLA CASE – TRANSFER OF ATTACHED ASSETS TO BANKS – ORDERED BY SPECIAL COURT [PMLA] AND RELEASED BY ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE U/S 8(8) OF PMLA.
In an historic and land mark judicial decision, the Special Court – PMLA at Mumbai ordered restoration of properties to the Applicant Banks who suffered loss as a result of money-laundering by Kingfisher Airlines involving Vijay Mallya vide Order dated 24.05.2021 by The Special Judge to CBI, City Civil Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai which is the designated Special Court under Sec. 8 (8) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act [PMLA] 2002. This order empowered Enforcement Directorate to release the immovable properties, unpledged shares and pledged shares totally worth Rs. 4234.84 Crores and the Enforcement Directorate has swiftly and promptly acted upon this order without any loss of time, thus enabling the Applicant Bank to recover part of their loss immediately.
Further, the same Special Court restored further assets worth Rs. 1411.70 Crores to the Applicant Banks / Institutions through Enforcement Department.
Thus, a total a total Rs. 5646.54 Crores has been restored to the Applicant Banks in Vijay Mallya Kingfisher Airlines PMLA case.
The above orders were issued by the Special Court – PMLA during the course of trial under Sec. 44 & 45 of PML Act 2002.
The copy of order dated-24.05.2021
SEEMA GARG CASE JUDGEMENT.
SEEMA GARG Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORMENT – PMLA CASE – JUDGEMENT BY DIVISION BENCH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND BY SUPREME COURT – ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTIES IN VALUE EQUIVALENCE UNDER SECTION2(U) OF PML ACT 2002.
A long persisting gloom over the trauma of attachment of properties, not directly involved with alleged Proceeds of Crime but attached by value equivalence under Sec. 2 (u) of PML Act 2002, is fully cleared by the verdict issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India on 30.04.2021 by its judgement in Seema Garg Vs Deputy Director of Enforcement case.
In the matter of Seema Garg Vs Deputy Director of Enforcement, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a torch bearing judgement on 06.03.2020 which cleansed the ambiguity that has been on vogue in legal circle over the duality of understanding of attaching properties acquired prior to commencement of PML Act 2002 or prior to commitment of the predicate offence or scheduled offence.
On 06th March 2020, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: 19. In view of above discussion, we summarise our findings as below: i) In case investigation is pending, filing of complaint against others is not sufficient to deprive any person from benefit of time cap of 365 days. ii) Property acquired prior to commission of scheduled offence i.e. criminal activity or introduction of PMLA cannot be attached unless property obtained or acquired from scheduled offence is held or taken outside the country. iii) Director or any other officer authorised by him is bound to record reasons which must be specific and mere reproduction of wording of Section 5 is not sufficient. 20. In view of our above findings, present appeals deserve to be allowed and accordingly, we allow all the three appeals and set aside impugned order dated 9.8.2019 passed by Tribunal. 21 . Since the main cases itself have been decided, no orders are required to be passed in the pending miscellaneous applications if any, and the same stands disposed of.
Later, the Enforcement Directorate filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.14713-14715/2020 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to pass Order as follows:
By the part (ii) of the judgement of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court which is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court by its judgement dated 30.04.2021, it is categorically made clear that properties purchased prior to commencement of the PML Act or prior to commission of the predicate offence or scheduled offence cannot be attached, unless the alleged proceeds of crime is held anywhere outside India in any fashion. In other words, attachment of a property under the concept “value equivalent” under Section 2 (u) of PML Act can be done only if the alleged proceeds of Crime is held outside India.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned ASG along with Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Advocate in support of the petitions. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Amendment to PMLA 2002 - Finance Bill 2019
Property mortgaged with bank prior to commissioning of money laundering offence couldn't be attached u/s. 5 of PMLA - ATFP, New Delhi
Prevention of Money Laundering Act: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s view on Jairam Ramesh’s petition
RDBA, SARFAESI, IBC don't prevail over PMLA, Must be Harmonically Construed: Delhi HC
Delhi High Court has held that Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code don't prevail over provisions of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act.
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>
//>