Anirudh Pratap Agarwal Vs Enforcement Directorate (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that retention of seized property without adhering to section 20 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] is contrary to statutory framework and accordingly unsustainable in law. Hence, present appeal is allowed and order set aside.
Facts- The present Appeal, u/s. 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, impugns the Order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed under Section 26 of the PMLA against the Order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), which had allowed Original Application No. 78/2017 dated 17.03.2017 filed under Section 17(4) of the PMLA seeking retention of seized properties of the Appellant herein.
Conclusion- In the present case, it is undisputed, and as admitted by the learned counsel for the ED during the arguments, that no order under Section 20 was ever passed by the ED in relation to the initial 180-day retention of the Appellant’s property, nor was any such order communicated to the learned AA, as mandatorily required. Despite this non-compliance, the Appellant’s property continued to remain under retention until the conclusion of adjudication proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA. Such conduct is not only procedurally flawed but also a clear violation of the safeguards enshrined in the PMLA.
