PMLA proceedings are independent of the scheduled offence; an individual not named in the FIR/ECIR can be subject to attachment if involved with proceeds of crime. Furthermore, payment of taxes under fiscal schemes does not grant immunity from PMLA proceedings.

FINAL ORDER

This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-2300/DLI/2018 filed by Shri Lokesh Makin, against the Order dated 26.03.2018 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 845/2017 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 11/2017 dated 06.10.2017 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. ECIR/11/DLZO/2016 dated 30.11.2016 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent has based its investigation on a false case registered by the Delhi Police by way of FIR No. 416/2016 dated 29.11.2016 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The Respondent Directorate lodged an ECIR No. ECIR/11/DLZO/2016 dated 30.11.2016 against various persons. The Appellant herein has neither been named in the said FIR nor in the ECIR registered by the Respondent.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent issued the Provisional Attachment Order No. 11/2017 dated 06.10.2017 whereby the Respondent provisionally attached a sum amounting to Rs. 63,46,408/-. The said amount is cumulative total of amounts in the bank accounts of the Appellant, of the Companies (Murthal Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. and MMC Contractor Pvt. Ltd.) wherein the Appellant is a Director, of the proprietorship concern of the Appellant and of a joint account maintained by the Appellant and his wife.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the PAO passed by the Respondent as well as the Impugned Order dated March 26, 2018 ("Impugned Order") passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority are arbitrary orders whereby the bank accounts of the Appellant have been attached, without any cogent reason or basis. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Appellant has been falsely made a defendant in the Original Complaint. The Respondent has no evidence against the Appellant to suggest that he was involved in money laundering.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent has, while coming to the conclusion that the Appellant indulged in the money laundering, predominantly relied upon the statement of the Appellant recorded by the Respondent. It is submitted that the Appellant has clearly stated that the "concerned amount was business accumulated unaccounted cash". Thus, without prejudice, at the worst, the same can be categorized as violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is clearly not a Scheduled Offences under the Act.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that attachment of bank accounts of the Appellant is untenable and against the principles of natural justice. The Respondent has failed to provide any evidence which would even suggest that non-attachment of bank account would frustrate the proceedings. It is submitted that the Respondent miserably failed to draw any real basis or apprehension to conclude that the properties could be concealed, transferred or dealt in a manner which may frustrate the proceedings.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that despite acknowledging that the Appellant had voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 65,36,000/- as tax penalty under the Government Scheme named Pradhan Mantri Gareeb Kalyan Yojna and Rs. 32,75,000/- into government bond as a part of the same scheme of Government, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in not observing that the Appellant had no mala fide intention to che