Smt. Taijunnehar Bibi Vs Joint Director (Calcutta High Court)
Period of offence prior to June 1, 2009 attracts Money Laundering Act as proceeds of crime in possession till Amendment: Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court held that period of offence prior to June 1, 2009 attracts Schedule to Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] being amended with effect from June 1, 2009 as proceeds of crime continue in possession till Amendment.
Facts- Vide the present appeals, the appellant has mainly contested that the offences alleged as against the appellants were committed allegedly for the period between June 13, 2005 to June 16, 2007. He points out that the schedule of offences to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were amended with effect from June 1, 2009. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) acted without jurisdiction in proceeding under the Act of 2002.
Conclusion- Held that the plea, therefore, that by virtue of the Schedule to the Act, 2002 being amended with effect from June 1, 2009 and the offences alleged to be committed for a period prior thereto is not accepted. In our view, the Act of 2002 attempts to deal with and prevent money laundering. It is this essence which should be kept in mind while deciding the issue as to whether or not the period of the commission of the offence, is beyond the Act of 2002. The test would be whether or not with the coming into force of the Act of 2002 as also the subsequent amendments thereto, the persons charged under the Act, 2002 are in possession of the proceeds of the crime. If the answer to the issue as to whether the persons charged are in possession of the proceeds of the crime, after the Act, 2002 and its amendment came into effect, is in the affirmative then the invocation of the Act, 2002 against such charged persons cannot be faulted. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the appellants were dealing with immovable properties concerned as well as the proceeds of the crime subsequent to June 1, 2009. Therefore, we are not in a position to agree with the contention of the appellants that the period of offence being prior to June 1, 2009, therefore, the provisions of Act of 2002 are not attracted.
