APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PMLA-12995/KOL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6458/KOL/2023 Shri Vineet Kothari … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-13102/KOL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6498/KOL/2023 Shri Anand Kothari ... Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla Mr. Sahil Prashar, Advocates CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN

FINAL ORDER

27.04.2026 By these two appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002’), a challenge has been made to the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 15.02.2023.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are arising out of the ECIR recorded by the respondents pursuant to the FIR registered by the CBI, BS&FC, Kolkata for commission of offence under Sections 420,467,468,471 and

120-B IPC. In pursuance to the FIR, five charge sheets were filed followed by one supplementary charge sheet on the basis of the complaint made by Indian Overseas Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce and IDBI against M/s Prime Impex Ltd., M/s Prime Pulses Ltd. and others. Three other charge sheets were filed by CBI, EOW, Kolkata on the basis of the complaint made by Indian Overseas Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce and M/s PEC Ltd. for the same offences.

3. In reference to the complaint aforesaid, ten charge sheets and one supplementary charge sheet were filed finding involvement of a sum of Rs.4,47,44,08,331/-.

4. M/s Prime Impex Ltd. was the flagship company of Prime Group run by Ranjit Singh Kothari and his son Anand Kothari. They were running many other companies which have been named in the impugned order but not so relevant for the purpose of this case.

5. So far as the appellants are concerned, their properties have been provisionally attached and have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, these two appeals have been preferred.

Arguments of counsel for the appellants:

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the LICs under provisional attachment were taken much prior to the commission of crime thus it cannot be said to be the proceeds of crime. The attachment has been questioned on the aforesaid ground.

7. It is further submitted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court where criminal proceedings for the predicate offence/ECIR have been challenged coupled with the interim order in reference to the PMLA case. In view of the above also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

8. It is further submitted that the appellant Vineet Kothari has not been named as an accused in the predicate offence though it is fairly admitted that in pursuance to the ECIR recorded by the respondents, he has been named in the prosecution complaint as an accused. In the light of the submission aforesaid, the prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity to raise any other legal or factual issue. The counsel for the appellants recorded his satisfaction to the arguments referred to above and prayed for adjudication of those issues.

Arguments of counsel for the respondents:

10. The appeals were seriously contested by the learned counsel for the respondents. Elaborate arguments were made on each issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It would be referred while recording our finding on all the issues raised by the appellants to avoid repetition of facts and for the sake of brevity.

Finding of the Tribunal:

11. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

12. In the initial paras of this order, the brief facts pertaining to the registration of the case by different financial institutions for com