SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 2088

VIBHU BAKHRU
Financial Intelligence Unit-Ind – Appellant
Versus
Corporation Bank – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Satish Aggarwala, Adv., Gagan Vaswani, Adv., Radhika Narang, Adv., Sarvesh Kumar, Adv., Navjot, Adv., Joby P. Varghese, Adv., Arti Singh, Adv., Pooja Singh, Adv., Aakashdeep Singh, Adv., Harin Raval, Adv., Sanjay Kapur, Adv., Megha Karnwal, Adv., Harshal Narayan, Adv., Premtosh Mishra, Adv., Mayank Tripathi, Adv., Madhav Khurana, Adv., V. Pasayat, Adv., Khyati Bhardwaj, Adv., Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Adv., Sakshi Gaur, Adv., Sorabh Dahiya, Adv., Gyanendra Kumar, Adv., Shikha Tandon, Adv., Sayesha Bhattacharya, Adv., Vipin Jai, Adv., B.P. Singh, Adv., Chandan Jha, Adv., Mohit Mathur, Adv., Lalit Chauhan, Adv., Aditya Sharma, Adv., Dayan Krishnan, Adv., Saifur R. Faridi, Adv., Manvi Priya, Adv., Smarika Singh, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The Financial Intelligence Unit-IND, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (hereafter 'FIU') has filed the present appeals-fourteen in number-under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning a common judgment dated 28.06.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereafter 'the Appellate Tribunal').

2. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal had modified the orders passed by the Director, FIU under Section 13(2) of the Act. By those orders, the Director, FIU had imposed the maximum fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each instance of failure on part of the respondent banks to comply with the obligations as set out in Section 12 of the Act, read with Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance and Records) Rules, 2005 (hereafter 'the Rules'). Whilst the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondent banks that there was no failure to report any suspicious transactions, it proceeded to reduce the punitive measure as imposed by the Director, FIU. The Appellate Tribunal held that the violation of the reporting

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                whatsapp-icon Back to top