APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PMLA-11214/DLI/2023 (Misc.)

MP-PMLA-7489/DLI/2020 (Stay) MP-PMLA-5329/DLI/2018 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-1291/DLI/2014 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-734/DLI/2014 Nishi Sarkar … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Sh. R.D. Tyagi, Adv.

Sh. Pranab Tyagi, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Aditya Singla, Adv.

Sh. Sahil Parashar, Adv.

CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

19.08.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-734/DLI/2014 filed by Sh. Nishi Sarkar against the Order dated 04.08.2014 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) in the Original Complaint (OC) No. 273/2014. The Impugned Order confirmed the Provisional Attachment of the property House No. 1898-A, Gali No. 18, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi valued at Rs. 11,00,000/- made vide the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 02/2014 dated 10.03.2014 in ECIR No. ECIR/08/DLZO/2013 registered by the Respondent Directorate. The allegation against the Appellant related to having placed domestic helps as bonded labour with employers in as much as they were paid salaries below the minimum wages stipulated by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, of NCT, Delhi vide Notification No. F.12(1to 29)/92/mw/Lab dated 15.02.1994, so as to earn commissions and thereby having committed offence of money-laundering. The Appellant had generated funds which resulted in the purchase of the impugned property.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the role of the Appellant has truthfully come out in the statements tendered under Section 50 of PMLA that the Appellant provided domestic help to the needy persons. The Appellant received only a small amount of the commission for his services. The allegations made against the Appelant are false and fabricated. He further submitted that the manner of working of the alleged bonded labor is not covered by the definition of the bonded labour. The domestic helps were spending maximum time with the employer who was taking the service from them. The Respondent Directorate failed to record the statement of the said labourers.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the calculation of the proceeds of crime has been done in a mechanical manner. He stated that the impugned property was purchased by the Appellant on 23.04.2013 for Rs. 11,00,000/- after disposing of his property in Faridabad. The finding of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority that the said property was purchased from the illegal sources of income is contrary to the facts. The Appellant has already explained about the funding of the purchase of his property at 228, First Floor, Block A, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He therefore pleaded that even the property which has been attached is from legal sources of income of the Appellant. He drew attention to the copy of the sale deed which was submitted to show the genuine purchase of the impugned property.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant also argued that the Eviction Notice issued under Section 8 (4) of PMLA was stayed by this Tribunal on 19.12.2014 subject to Appellant depositing Rs. 10,000/- per month as charges for use and occupation of this impugned property with effect from

01.11.2014. This Order was continued vide Order dated 05.10.2018 of this Tribunal. On 21.08.2020, the Appellant contended that he has already deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- whereas the total proceeds of crime (POC) is little more than Rs. 9,00,000/-. This Tribunal directed the Appellant to make further deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- by 30.09.2020 and to continue depositing Rs. 10,000/- per month towards the use and occupation charges as earlier ordered by this Tribunal on 19.12.2014. The continued payment was ordered on 01.10.2020. It was also noted that the Counsel for the Respondent had informed that Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited