Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 454
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
G.C. Mishra, MEMBER, Rajesh Malhotra, MEMBER
Abdul Majeed – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-1786/COCHIN/2017 | FPA-PMLA-1787/COCHIN/2017 | FPA-PMLA-1788/COCHIN/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.C. Radhakrishnan
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Ms. Ridhi Kapoor
The court affirmed that properties can be attached under PMLA if not demonstrated as legally acquired, irrespective of trial outcomes for initial offences.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 2(1)(u) - Definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ discussed; properties acquired before the alleged offence remain subject to attachment if linked to criminal activity. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
(B) Appellants argue that properties were legally acquired and attached property cannot be linked to proceeds of crime; burden of proof on appellants under Section 24 not discharged. (Paras 7)
(C) The respondent’s power to provisionally attach property is upheld irrespective of pending trial outcome. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed appeals against the confirmation of property attachments linked to an NIA investigation into fake currency notes. Properties' legitimacy questioned by Attachment Order issued under PMLA, arguing legal acquisition dates back prior to alleged offences.
Findings of Court:
Appellants failed to demonstrate the properties were obtained from legitimate sources, affirming the attachment of properties as proceeds of crime.
Issues: Whether the properties were acquired legitimately prior to alleged offence and if burden of proof under Section 24 was satisfactorily met.
Ratio Decidendi: Properties could be preserved for confiscation under PMLA as a procedure distinct from criminal culpability, supporting the concept of simultaneous attachment irrespective of trial completion.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding properties attached under pmla. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about legitimacy and proof of property acquisition. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on the criteria for property attachment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. importance of preserving properties for potential confiscation. (Para 8) |
| 5. final ruling on appeals based on preceding reasoning. (Para 9) |
FINAL ORDER
05.06.2025 Dictated By:
Rajesh Malhotra Present appeals u/s 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) are filed by the appellants against the Order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 667/2016, whereby the properties attached by ED vide PAO No. 03/2016 dated 10.11.2016 were confirmed. The details of the properties of the present appellants are as under:
I. Property in the name of Abdul Majeed Building no, 9/232 (old no. 8/358A) NAMED “Mannuparambil House” in Maranchery Village situated in the property referred in the gift deed 3111/15, Ponnani SRO, Malapuram, Kerala Sy. No. 179/3-5.463 Are, in the name of Abdul Majeed valued at Rs. 6,00,000/-.
II. Property in the name of Shakeela w/o Abdul Kalam and Ali Sathar Haji:
The property in the deed 2608/2015, Vazhakad SRO, in Pulikal Village, Vazhakad, Malapuram, Kerala valued at Rs. 8,25,000/-, Re. Sy. Nos. 57/1-17.03 Are, 61/1-4.30 Are, 56/1 -0.15 Are (Total Area 21.48 Are) which jointly held by Shakeela w/o Abdul Kalam along with Ali Sathar Haji.
2. As per the facts of the case, National Investigation Agency, Cochin received information on 11.03.2010 regarding detection of fake Indian Currency notes to the tune of Rs. 24,16,000/- by DRI, Cochin from the baggage of Gopinath K.. NIA registered FIR No. 655/2010 u/s 489(C) IPC and subsequently case was sent to CB-CID where the case was re- registered as Crime No. 447/CR/OCW-II-10/EKM and Section 486(B) of IPC was also added. Later-on, investigation was taken over by NIA as per order No. 11034/36/2011-IS-IV dated 06.01.2012 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. NIA recorded FIR No. 03/2012/ NIA/HYD dated 28.01.2012 and thereafter filed chargesheet on 14.02.2014 before the Hon’ble Special Court for NIA, Ernakulam against Abdul Majeed @ PRO Majeed @ Babu and Abdul Kalam @ Azad for commission of offence 120-B IPC r.w.s. 489(B) & 489(C) IPC and substantive offences thereunder. On 01.06.2015, NIA filed another chargesheet against Mohammad Rafi.
Accordingly, the Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin recorded ECIR No. 3/CZ/2012 dated 14.12.2012 against Gopinath K. and Abdul Majeed and initiated investigation for the offence of money laundering and to track the trail of proceeds of crime. During investigation, ED recorded the statements of the accused persons/suspected persons and others. On the basis of material collected during investigation, ED attached the properties including the properties of the present appellants vide PAO No. 03/2016 dated 10.11.2016, and thereafter, filed the Original Complaint along with relied upon documents & statements before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the PAO. The Adjudicating Authority after going through the allegations coupled with the incriminating material annexed with the complaint issued the Show Cause Notice to the defendants. After receiving the respective replies and hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO vide order dated 07.04.2017.
Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed the present appeals.
3. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent ED doesn't have power to provisionally attach the property of the appellant, as no offence is made out under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. He argued that there is no material available on record to show that the property attached was acquired out of the proceeds of the crime and the alleged tainted money was already seized by the DRI official, then there remains no question of utilizing the fake money or proceeds of cr
