The Tribunal found that the relationship between parties was a commercial arrangement for smooth supply of goods. It held that such arrangements do not amount to benami transactions. commercial dealings must be distinguished from benami arrangements.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant to receipt of proceeds of crime under PMLA. It set aside the attachment, holding that mere suspicion without proof cannot justify action.
The Tribunal confirmed liability of directors under Section 42 based on their role in managing the company. It found no error in holding them responsible. Key takeaway: managerial control establishes accountability.
The Tribunal upheld FERA violations involving unauthorized foreign exchange transfers through hawala channels. However, considering delay and circumstances, it reduced the penalty significantly.
The Tribunal upheld contravention but reduced penalties due to lack of justification for maximum fines. It emphasized proportionality in penalty determination. Key takeaway: penalty must be reasoned and proportionate.
The Tribunal upheld attachment, ruling that funds used in a conspiracy can qualify as proceeds of crime. It held that even layered investments linked to illegal activity are attachable under PMLA.
The tribunal clarified that penalties under FEMA arise from breach of statutory obligations and do not require proof of intent. Once a violation is established, liability can be imposed even without showing a guilty mind.
PMLA Tribunal held share investment not proceeds of crime and limited attachment only to mining profits. Productive assets of the company may be released if equivalent security such as bank guarantee or FDR is furnished.
The tribunal observed that the adjudication order merely stated conclusions without explaining the evidence against the accused. Such unsupported findings cannot justify a penalty under foreign exchange laws.
SAFEMA Tribunal held overseas online forex trading violated FEMA despite claims of ignorance, but reduced the penalty from ₹5.20 crore to ₹20 lakh after noting the trader suffered losses of ₹3.25 crore.
