Conviction under the PMLA requires clear evidence linking accused to proceeds of crime; absence of such evidence results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.Kumaresh Babu J.

These Appeals arise out of a common judgment of conviction that had been made against the appellants for their involvement in the offences covered under the Provisions of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the “PMLA Act”). As a consequence, these Appeals were taken up together with the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants in connivance with each other had committed an offence under Section 420 r/w. 120 IPC for which criminal cases had been registered against them. It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused had floated firms with the help of the third accused and had cheated various people who had filed complaints for commission of the scheduled offences and of the sale proceeds, properties were acquired making the sale proceeds tainted money, thereby committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act. The appellants/ accused have all been convicted and the same is in challenge before us.

3. Heard Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Pugalenthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A.No.979 of 2022, Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A.No.980 of 2022, Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A.No.987 of 2022 and Mr.P.Sidharthan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Directorate of Enforcement Cases appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) in all Appeals.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ first accused would submit that the entire prosecution under the PMLA Act is on the surmise that the complainants in the respective First Information Report upon which an ECIR had been registered had been duped and cheated. He would submit that the complainants on whose complaints the FIRs came to be registered and form part of Exs.P1 to P10 were never examined either by the Authorities under the PMLA Act nor were marched as witnesses before the Trial Court to drive home the presumption that the appellants have committed the scheduled offences for initiation of proceedings under the PMLA Act. He would submit that four witnesses were examined, of whom PW1 was the Investigating Officer and PW2 to 4 were the purchasers of the properties from the appellants. According to him, the ingredients for an offence under Section 3 had not been made out.

5. Firstly, he would submit that the scheduled offence itself had not been proved, much less the proceeds of such scheduled offences had also not been brought about by the Investigating Officer. Marching evidences through PW 2 to 4 who are the purchasers of the properties also did not bring about the purchase of such property by using tainted money by projecting the same to be untainted. He would vehemently contend that when the proceeds arising out of the crime has not been brought on record, it would be of no consequence to hold that the properties sold to PW 2 to 4 were purchased out of tainted money. He would further submit that in none of the predicate offence, the appellants who are accused there had been convicted. He would bring it to the notice of this Court that in one of the predicate offence, the accused had been acquitted as there was no concrete proof that he had committed the predicated offence. He would further submit that the Court below erred in coming to a conclusion that the monies that were used to purchase the properties sold to PW2 to 4 were purchased from the proceeds of the crime by concluding the same to be tainted money on the assumptions and presumptions based upon the evidence of PW1, who is the Investigating Officer. He would submit that the investigation under the PMLA Act and further criminal proceedings by a Court of Sessions followed the well established proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. He would submit that in the course of investigation, Directors had been vested wit