Davy Varghese Vs Deputy Director (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that provisional attachment of properties purchased before commission of offence under section 5(1) of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [PML Act] is ex-facie null and void. Accordingly, order attaching property quashed.
Facts- A septuagenarian, who claims to be suffering from a terminal illness, along with his wife, has approached this Court seeking to quash the order of provisional attachment issued under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. According to the petitioners, by the attachment, they have been wholly crippled to even manage the day-to-day living as all their immovable properties, bank accounts and all their vehicles have been attached.
Conclusion- High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kumar Pappu Singh v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Others has held that the properties purchased before the commission of offence cannot fall within the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ and cannot be attached or confiscated under the Act. In Satish Motilal Bidri v. Union of India it is held that provisions in the PML Act cannot be used to proceed against properties that are unconnected with any of the criminal activity in question.
Held that the attachment of properties purchased by the petitioners prior to 2014, under the provisions of section 5(1) of PML Act is ex-facie null and void and wholly without jurisdiction.
