Sourabh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Chhattisgarh High Court held that since there exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering. Thus, attachment order passed under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [SAFEMA] justified.
Facts- The present appeals are filed under Section 42 of the PMLA is to the common final order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and other connected appeals by which the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority by which the Provisional Attachment Order dated 09.12.2022 against the appellants, has been confirmed.
Conclusion- Held that it is not essential for the enforcement authority to establish by direct evidence that the property in question is proceeds of crime. In a money laundering case, the modus operandi often involves circuitous and opaque financial transactions, making direct evidence inherently difficult to obtain. Based on the material produced, including financial analysis, property acquisition timelines, and the absence of verifiable legitimate income, this Court is satisfied that there exists a prima facie nexus between the property and the PoC. The PAO is therefore in consonance with the statutory scheme under PMLA and is liable to be upheld. There exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering and further, the appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA. We do not find that any question of law arises in these appeals to be answered. Thus, we fully concur with the findings and reasoning given by the learned AA as well as the Appellate Tribunal and as such, these appeals being devoid of merit, are accordingly dismissed. However, the appellants are at liberty to take recourse to Section 8(8) of the PMLA, if so advised.
