Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016 of Neel Krish v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP25 Oct 2017FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against stay status of provisional attachment orders in four connected PMLA cases. Appellants challenged lack of Section 173 CrPC report and absence of reasoning on second proviso conditions in petiticnly submitted grounds.

What did the court decide?

No final relief granted on merits; proceedings stayed pending further submissions.

FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016 of Neel Krish v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2550/DLI/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1287/DLI/2016	Stay
Sanjeev Tyagi		…	Appellant
MP-PMLA-2563/DLI/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1310/DLI/2016	Stay
Krishanayan		…	Appellant
MP-PMLA-2613/DLI/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1316/DLI/2016 Sangeeta Tyagi	Stay	…	Appellant
MP-PMLA-2565/DLI/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016	Stay
Neel Krish		…	Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement	, Delhi	…	Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the appellant	:	Shri Manav Gupta, Advocate Shri Esha Dutta, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH		: CHAIRMAN
SHRI G.C. MISHRA		: MEMBER

¶5

ORDER

¶6

25.10.2017

¶7

FPA-PMLA-1287/DLI/2016, FPA-PMLA-1310/DLI/2016, FPA-PMLA1316/DLI/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016

¶8

1 The learned counsel for the appellant has made his preliminary submission arguing that there was no valid attachment. The provisional attachment order was passed contrary to the provision of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

¶9

2 Section 5 reads as under:

¶10

Attachment of property involved in money laundering.(1) Where the director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1287, 1310, 1311 & 1316/DLI/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶12

Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that-

¶13

(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and

¶14

(b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed:

¶15

Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country:

¶16

Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in[ first proviso], any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.].”

¶17

As far as first proviso is concerned he argued that it is an admitted position that on the date of passing the provisional order. The report under Section 173 was not filed. Therefore, no attachment order could be passed under the first proviso.

¶18

Pertaining to second proviso, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no finding or any discussion in order to satisfy the conditions of second proviso wherein it is mandated that the provisional attachment order that if such property is not attached immediately, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.

¶19

On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate submits that in the provisional attachment order, the second proviso has been discussed. All the conditions are satisfied.

¶20

FPA-PMLA-1287, 1310, 1311 & 1316/DLI/2016

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

On these submissions made by both the sides, order would be

¶23

passed very soon.

¶24

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶25

(G.C. Mishra)

¶26

Member

¶27

New Delhi, 25^th October, 2017.

¶28

‘K’

¶29

FPA-PMLA-1287, 1310, 1311 & 1316/DLI/2016

¶30

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016 of Neel Krish v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1311/DLI/2016 of Neel Krish v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases