Pavana Dibbur vs Directorate of Enforcement

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1184

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Pavana Dibbur – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ashima Mandla, Adv. Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Chandratanay Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Nanakey Kalra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.V.Raju,ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Alka Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh,Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju,Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhatla,Adv. Mr. Hitarch Raja,Adv. Ms. Madhumitta K.,Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh,Adv. Ms. Sonali Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma,Adv. Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal,Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami,Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the extent to which a person not named in predicate offences can be prosecuted under Section 3 of the PMLA? What are the conditions under which "proceeds of crime" and a scheduled offence must exist to sustain a PMLA money-laundering prosecution? How does Section 120B IPC conspiracy interact with the Schedule to the PMLA when the alleged conspiracy pertains to non-scheduled offences?

What is the extent to which a person not named in predicate offences can be prosecuted under Section 3 of the PMLA?

What are the conditions under which "proceeds of crime" and a scheduled offence must exist to sustain a PMLA money-laundering prosecution?

How does Section 120B IPC conspiracy interact with the Schedule to the PMLA when the alleged conspiracy pertains to non-scheduled offences?

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

OVERVIEW

1. The respondent–the Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘ED’), filed a complaint under the second proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’) before the Special Court for PMLA Cases at Bengaluru. The appellant–Pavana Dibbur was shown as accused no.6 in the said complaint. By the order dated 17th March 2022, the Special Court took cognisance of the said complaint. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) seeking the relief of quashing of the said complaint. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27th September 2022, the petition for quashing the complaint has been dismissed.

2. In the year 2011, Alliance Business School (for short, ‘ABS’) purchased a property bearing Khata no.37/22 at Gollahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru for the consideration of Rs.13.05 crores. The area of the said property is approximately five acres. For the sake of convenience, we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1184

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHALPavana Dibbur – AppellantVersusDirectorate of Enforcement – Respondent

What is the extent to which a person not named in predicate offences can be prosecuted under Section 3 of the PMLA?

What are the conditions under which "proceeds of crime" and a scheduled offence must exist to sustain a PMLA money-laundering prosecution?

How does Section 120B IPC conspiracy interact with the Schedule to the PMLA when the alleged conspiracy pertains to non-scheduled offences?

Cases Referred (1)

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Pavana Dibbur – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent