Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Vijayraj Surana – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
ORDER (COMMON)
S.M. Subramaniam, J.—Under assail are the proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019 dated 27.12.2019, CEZO-I/37/2020-dated 25.09.2020 and CEZO-I/42/2020 dated 24.12.2020.
I. Factual Matrix:
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, [hereinafter referred as ‘PMLA’] complaint are that they have obtained loans from IDBI Bank to the tune of Rs.1301.76 Crores and Rs.1495.76 Crores from the same IDBI Bank and from the SBI Bank, Rs.1188.56 Crores. The loan borrowed by the said companies have facilitated mis-appropriation, manipulation of books of accounts through fictitious accounts and conversion of property of SIL by way of No.(1) Capital advances to potentially related party, (2) Sales and purchase with potentially related properties (3) bilateral transactions with properties related amongst themselves.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner and the company for the purpose of routing of funds borrowed money from one Mr.Gowtham Raj Surana to the tune of Rs.33,09,80,860/- for Global Industries, Rs.14,53,95,350/- for Prince Enterprises and Rs.20,47,69,749/- for Supreme Corporation. Totally, Rs.68
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
A quashed FIR does not automatically invalidate an ECIR; the ECIR is independent and requires substantive grounds for quashing based on the merits of the predicate offence under PMLA.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
The presence of a scheduled offence legitimizes the existence of an ECIR and allows the department to continue the investigation. However, the settlement or quashing of scheduled offences in FIRs pro....
Money laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained without a validly registered predicate offense; if the predicate offense is quashed, so are the related m....
Section 66(1) of the PMLA prescribes the obligations of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide or facilitate the provision of pertinent information to designated government entities when such inform....
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
The court affirmed that actions taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are invalid without a subsisting predicate offense, establishing that quashing of an FIR necessitates the quashing o....
An ECIR is an internal document of the ED and cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as it does not equate to an FIR.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
