APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-2126/NGP/2017 Bank of Baroda … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Nagpur … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Vivek & Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. N K Matta & Aditya Raj Sharma, Advocates CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

13.05.2025 Dictated By : Rajesh Malhotra Present appeal u/s 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is filed by the Appellant Bank against the impugned order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 761/2017, whereby the properties attached by ED vide Provisional Attachment Order No.04/2017 (PAO) dated 31.03.2017 were confirmed, including the following immovable properties mortgaged with the appellant bank Mortgaged by Shri Ramchandra M. Katkamwar & Shri Praful S.

Vaidya:

2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR was registered against the accused persons of the Samta Sahakari Bank Ltd., dated 15.11.2007 for commission of offence u/s 120-B of IPC r.w.s. 406, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 201 of IPC also r.w.s. 65 of Information & Technology Act, 2005 and substantive offences there under. Thereafter, case was transferred to State Crime Investigation Department, Nagpur. After investigation CID Nagpur filed four final reports in the said case on 25.03.2008, 22.08.2008, 15.10.2008 & 30.06.2010 for the commission of aforesaid offences.

As per the allegations the accused persons in conspiracy with the Chairman and Directors of the Samta Sahakari Bank Ltd., obtained various loan facilities against the mortgage of the properties by over valuing the same; prepared bogus documents & wrongful information about their self & their business and the occupation of the Guarantors etc.; blank loan application forms were submitted by only putting the loanee’s signature on them; the signature of Guarantor were not obtained; the amounts were illegally adjusted from one loan account to other loanee’s account.

On the basis of above information, ED also recorded ECIR No. Dated

20.11.2009 for initiating investigation for the offence of money laundering under PMLA.

During investigation ED recorded the statements of the suspected and others and also collected the documents from the investigation agencies and other departments. Being satisfied that the material on record, ED passed the PAO order No. 04/2017 dated 31.03.2017. Thereafter, ED filed Original Complaint No. 761/2017 before the Adjudicating Authority for the confirmation of the PAO.

The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied with the allegations made in the OC coupled with the documents and the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, confirmed the PAO vide its order dated 13.09.2017.

Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the present appeal.

3. During the arguments Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out tha