Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 420
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI (1) MP-PMLA-9169/COCHIN/2021 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-4423/COCHIN/2021 Mr. Santiago Martin … Appellant (2) MP-PMLA-11114/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11113/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5583/COCHIN/2023 M/s Future Gaming & Hotels Services Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (3) MP-PMLA-11116/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11115/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5584/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Builders Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (4) MP-PMLA-11118/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11117/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5585/COCHIN/2023 M/s Charles Realtors Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (5) MP-PMLA-11120/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11119/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5586/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (6) MP-PMLA-11122/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11121/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5587/COCHIN/2023 M/s Charles Modular Homes Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (7) MP-PMLA-11124/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11123/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5588/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Reality Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (8) MP-PMLA-11126/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11125/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5589/COCHIN/2023 M/s Charles Housing Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (9) MP-PMLA-11128/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11127/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5590/COCHIN/2023 M/s Charles Promoters Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (10) MP-PMLA-11130/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11129/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5591/COCHIN/2023 M/s Daison Construction India Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (11) MP-PMLA-11132/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11131/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5592/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (12) MP-PMLA-11134/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11133/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5593/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (13) MP-PMLA-11136/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11135/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5594/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Homes Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (14) MP-PMLA-11138/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11137/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5595/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (15) MP-PMLA-11142/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11141/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5596/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Plaza Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (16) MP-PMLA-11140/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11139/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5597/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (17) MP-PMLA-11144/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11143/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5598/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Realcon Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (18) MP-PMLA-11146/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11145/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5599/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Township Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (19) MP-PMLA-10858/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10857/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5442/COCHIN/2023 Shri Santiago Martin … Appellant (20) MP-PMLA-10860/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10859/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5443/COCHIN/2023 M/s Daison Land & Development Pvt. Lt … Appellant (21) MP-PMLA-10862/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10861/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5444/COCHIN/2023 M/s Charles Realtors Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (22) MP-PMLA-10864/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10863/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5445/COCHIN/2023 … Appellant M/s Charles Modular Homes Pvt. Ltd.
(23) MP-PMLA-10866/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10865/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5446/COCHIN/2023 … Appellant M/s Martin Reality Pvt. Ltd.
(24) MP-PMLA-10868/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10867/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5447/COCHIN/2023 M/s Dominant Towers & Traders Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (25) MP-PMLA-10870/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-10869/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5448/COCHIN/2023 M/s Martin Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (26) MP-PMLA-9856/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-4866/COCHIN/2022 Shri Santiago Martin … Appellant (27) MP-PMLA-11365/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11364/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5731/COCHIN/2023 M/s Daison Land & Development Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (28) MP-PMLA-11367/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11366/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5732/COCHIN/2023 M/s Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant (29) MP-PMLA-11369/COCHIN/2023 (Misc.)
MP-PMLA-11368/COCHIN/2023 (Stay)
FPA-PMLA-5733/COCHIN/2023 … Appellant M/s Martin Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Amit Bhalla, Mr. Akshat Choudhary, Mr. Aniket Mookherjee, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Priyank Khattar, Ms. Nattasha Garg,Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER
FINAL ORDER
08.07.2024 FPA-PMLA-4423/COCHIN/2021, FPA-PMLA-5582 to 5599/
COCHIN/2023, FPA-PMLA-5442 to 5448/COCHIN/2023, FPA-PMLA-4866/COCHIN/2022,FPA-PMLA-5731 to 5733/
COCHIN/2023.
The batch of appeals have been preferred to challenge the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in reference to three different Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs). The Adjudicating Authority has passed three separate orders but they are arising out of the same ECIR. The learned counsel for the appellants raised common issues for challenge to the orders of the Adjudicating Authority. In reference to two sets of appeals i.e. Appeal No. 4423/2021 and 17 connected appeals and Appeal No. 4866/2022 with 3 connected appeals, two additional grounds have been raised, otherwise all other grounds are common for challenge to three different orders of the Adjudicating Authority. The appellants havereferred the facts arising out of the Appeal No.4423/2021 and for convenience, we would be making reference of the facts out of the said appeal.
2. The facts available onrecord shows that the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Cochin forwarded a consolidated final report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in reference to different RCs for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420 IPC, apart from Sections 4(d)(f),7(3) and 9 of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1988 (in short `LR Act‟) and Rules 3(5) and 4(5) of Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010. It was against S. Martin and others. 3. It is alleged that `proceeds of crime‟ crystalized by the respondent is ofa sum of Rs.910 Crores and was derived by M/s M.J. Associates, a partnership firm whereS.Martin was having 51% shares and N.Jayamurugan 49% shares. The prosecution complaint shows that S.Martin had derived `proceeds of crime‟ to the extent of Rs.464.25 crores while remaining by N.Jayamurugan. The allegation is that the property worth of Rs.892.52 crores of S. Martin has been attached while for N.Jayamurugan, it is only of 16.57 crores. The argument aforesaid has been raised without realizing that according to the appellants themselves, the proceeds of crime is with M/s M.J. Associates, a partnership firm. The amount of proceeds cannot be divided amongst the partners as given by the appellant rather partner remains liable for commission of offences by the firm. As per the settled proposition of law, liability of each partner remains unlimited unlike in a Private or Public Limited Company. Thus, there was no reason to have bifurcation of the proceeds of crime for the purpose of attachment. It is also alleged that separate orders of provisional attachment were issued by the respondent against many firms and individual followed by its confirmation. Batch of appeals have been separately filed and, therefore, it should be taken together otherwise the cases would be incapable of reconciliation. We do not find any substance in the argument because each case has to be decided on its facts, may be involving common question of law and accordingly the matters were taken up by the Tribunal and the final arguments were made without aprayer for hearing all the matters together.
4. Based on the FIRs and the charge sheet having involvement of scheduled offences under Section 120-B/420 IPC and finally a case of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002‟), an ECIR was recorded on 19.08.2014 against S. Martin and others and thereupon investigation under the Act of 2002 was initiated. During the course of investigation, aprima facie case of money laundering was found against S. Martin and many others which includes several companies and firms belonging to S. Martin. It was even against Mr. N. Jayamurugan. The respondent then proceeded to issue Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) to protect the proceeds of crime to its equivalent value and accordingly several properties were attached.
5. The allegation against the appellant was in reference t
