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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, V. Sivagnanam, JJ.
Ms. S. Jayalakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zone-I, rep. by its Deputy Director - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 82 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No. 646 of 2024
Decided On : 28-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Nithyash Natarajan for M/s.Sri Law Associates.
For the Respondent: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr.Cibi Vishnu, Special Public Prosecutor for ED

Shareholders can be implicated under money laundering laws even without direct involvement if evidence indicates indirect participation in financial crimes.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 227 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, and 24 - The petitioner sought discharge in PMLA proceedings on grounds of lack of evidence linking her to money laundering. However, the Trial Court found that as a major shareholder, she could be implicated in money laundering for indirect involvement. The court emphasized that mere shareholder status does not immunize one from prosecution if evidence indicates knowledge or consent to criminal activities. The complaint contained sufficient material to proceed to trial and the dismissal of the discharge petition was upheld. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 11, 21, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as a major shareholder in a company involved in complex financial transactions across international borders, argued her lack of direct involvement in the management or decision-making leading to alleged money laundering.

Findings of Court:
There is a prima facie case against the petitioner under PMLA, with evidence supporting her indirect involvement in the alleged proceeds of crime.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, merely as a shareholder, could be charged under PMLA without direct evidence of participation in criminal activities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that shareholders could be implicated under PMLA through indirect involvement, relevant to the broader scope of financial crime statutes, thus allowing prosecution without direct evidence of individual wrongdoing.

Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the case and the accused's role. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for discharge based on allegations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. clarification on liability of corporate shareholders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. provisions of pmla apply regardless of direct participation in company decisions. (Para 16 , 20)
5. respondent's justification for prosecution under pmla. (Para 17 , 21 , 22)
6. evidence presentation in pmla cases requires context of economic impact. (Para 18)
7. standards for proving shareholder involvement. (Para 23 , 32)
8. court’s view on procedural aspects of pmla cases. (Para 24 , 26 , 27)
9. shareholder's mere status does not exempt responsibility under pmla. (Para 25)
10. evidence needed for prosecution under pmla. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. judgment and dismissal of revision case. (Para 38 , 39)

ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam J.

Under assail is the judgement dated 13th October, 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.6422 of 2022 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2021.

2. The petitioner is Accused No.16 and she filed a petition under Section 2 27 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE for discharge. Since the petition has been dismissed, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be instituted.

3. The petitioner is the then wife of Mr.C.Sivasankaran. The facts of the case are that the company, by name M/s Win Wind Oy, Finland (WWO) was sanctioned loan by M/s IDBI Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai, for financial assistance of EURO 52 Million - (INR equivalent to 322.40 crores) towards Working Capital Facility, Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Loan Equivalent Ratio (LER). Due to lack of business, the company could not carry on the business and eventually ended up only accumulating losses. Later, WWO applied for Voluntary Bankruptcy and approached the Court of Finland who appointed Bankruptcy Estate Administrator (BEA) on 03.10.2013 for liquidation of assets.

4. After that, senior officials of IDBI Bank suggested to grant loan to M/s Axcel Sunshine Limited (M/s.ASL) based in the British Virgin Islands, for non-productive purpose to a tune of 83 Million USD to use the same for repaying the loan of M/s WWO and other associate companies of Siva Groups. Accordingly, the IDBI, DIFC Branch, Dubai disbursed a loan to the tune of 67 Million USD to M/s Axcel Sunshine Limited on 05.03.2014. The loans disbursed had not been utilised for the purpose for which it was availed from the IDBI Bank. Thus, the petitioners have involved in the process and activity of placement layering an integration of the proceeds of crime.

5. The petitioner sates that she was no way connected with the first loan disbursed to WWO Finland or the second loan disbursed to M/s.ASL, BV Island by IDBI Bank. As a shareholder of SIHL, the petitioner has neither given any consent, nor signed any resolution passed by SIHL to borrow money from IDBI Bank or to offer collateral security for loan.

6. In the meantime, CBI, BS & FC registered FIR No.09 dated 13.04.2018 under Section 120 B r/w Sections 409 , 420 of IPC, r/w Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the case registered by the CBI disclosed an offence under Section 120(b) r/w 420 of IPC, r/w Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is a schedule offence under Section 2 (1)(y) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred as PMLA), the respondent had registered a case in ECIDR/CEZO/1/10/2018 on 01.05.2018 for further investigation. The petitioner was not arraigned as an accused, either in the FIR or in the ECIR. Further she was not arraigned as accused in the final report filed by the CBI for the offence's under Sections 120(B) and 420 of IPC before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 24.12.2022 in C.C.No.554 of 2023.

7. On completion of investigation, the respondent issued the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 01/2019 dated 31.01.2009 and attached the immovable properties of the companies in terms of Section 5(1) of PMLA. Th

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 Back to top