Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 725 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTMoney Laundering - territorial jurisdiction - Validity of seizures, freezing, orders and of the consequential actions - power to the High Courts to entertain a Writ Petition, wherein full or a part of cause of action arose, within its jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India confers the power to the High Courts to entertain a writ petition wherein full or a part cause of action arises within its jurisdiction - it is not in doubt that this Court has the power to maintain such a writ petition although the original case might have been generated in another State. Afterall, the fundamental rights of the petitioner/claimant were allegedly violated within the jurisdiction of this Court. On merits, the investigating-in-question under the PML Act, 2002 revealed that huge sums of money were collected from the public by floating different online games at the Mahadeve Book App by the alleged offenders and such illegally gotten ‘proceeds of crime’ had been diverted/siphoned off through several associates which constitutes offence of money-laundering u/s 3 of the said Act. About 88 (Eighty eight) searches at 8 (Eight) different States of India including search, seizure and freezing in West Bengal. However, the entire investigation was conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at Raipur. Therefore, the search, seizure and freezing of property in Calcutta was a part of the entire investigation that was being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur. Under Section 17 (1) of the PML Act, it was primarily the Director who was required to have the reason to believe for the search and seizure and thereafter, he could authorise any subordinate officer to execute the Act. Hence, the format of Form II appended to the Rules of 2005 was providing for such option - In the instant case, the Director had authorised the Deputy Director and after having the reason to believe the Deputy Director duly authorised the Assistant Director, being subordinate to him, to execute the acts of search, seizure and freezing at the office premises. In fact, the Assistant Director so authorised issued the freezing order dated 10.09.2023 and the seizure Memo dated 10.09.2023 - Besides, the authority of the so authorised Assistant Director was derived from the statutory provision of Section 17 (1) and/or 17 (1A) of the said Act and even if there was any apparent inconsistency with the Rules, it is the Act that would prevail. Apparently, the copies of recorded reason were provided to the petitioners by the adjudicating authority. The RUDs to the SCN were annexed to the writ petition. Thus, there is hardly any merit in the contention that the show cause notice dated 13.10.2023 issued by the adjudicating authority under Section 8(1) of the PML Act was bad in law - Therefore, it does not appear that the above referred sequence of steps taken by the Enforcement Directorate is at all inconsistent with the statutory provisions. There are no merit in the application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
|