FINAL ORDER

27.11.2024 FPA-PMLA-4321/COCHIN/2021 This appeal has been preferred by invoking Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002‟) to challenge the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 25.03.2021.

2. The Provisional Attachment Order was caused to attach many properties taken to be “proceeds of crime”. However, so far as the present appeal is concerned, it relates to one property situated in Re Survey Nos. 269/5, 270/5 and

270/6 of Panmana Village, Karunagapally Taluk registered with Chavara Sub Registrar office in the name of James George.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property referred to above was acquired by the appellant out of a Gift from her uncle yet it has been attached. It is even ignoring the fact that the appellant is not an accused for commission of scheduled offence or the offence of money laundering. Her rightful claim to secure property out of Gift from her uncle has been affected by issuing the Provisional Attachment Order. The challenge to the impugned orders has been made precisely on the aforesaid grounds.

4. Referring to the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an FIR was registered by the police against James George of Modern Group House because he was cheating the students and job seekers for making unlawful gain by issuing forged certificates of various universities situated in different parts of India. It was with the help of employees Udaykumar and Mathew. Thus, they had committed offences under Section

468,471,34 and 420 IPC.

5. On registration of the FIR, the ECIR was recorded by the respondent for the offences under the IPC and the offence of money laundering. In the investigation, it was found that James George with the help of others was running an educational institution in the name of Modern Group and cheated the students by issuing forged certificates of various universities against payment. During the course of investigation, the statements of the accused James George apart from others were recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 which include Dr. Anuj Raj appellant. The property attached said to have been gifted by her uncle James George deeply involved in the commission of crime. The Gift was made to the appellant at the crucial time of commission of crime and thereby it was not taken to be a genuine gift, rather it was gifted to the appellant to save the property from attachment.

6. The Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation has been challenged by the appellant merely on the ground that once the property was gifted to the appellant, it could not have been subjected to attachment treating it to be proceeds of crime and, therefore, the prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned orders.

7. The appellant did not raise any other argument despite an opportunity and was called upon to raise any other issue pleaded by them. The counsel for the appellant opted to press only argument referred to above and accordingly he closed his argument.

8. The appeal was contested by the respondent. A detailed argument was raised in reference to the commission of crime. The acquisition of the property gifted to the appellant was by none else but the main accused James George. A reference of the statement of James George recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 was given who initially stated about his studies and made reference of the Agreement with several universities to act as their off campus centres. It was opened in the name and style of Modern Group, which was functioning from the same premises for 12 universities in different parts of the country. The main accused James George made a detailed statement about the functioning of the organization. He further made a statement on 01.03.2021 wherein he disclosed the name of other institutes which were known as part of Modern Group of Institutes at whose i