Urmila Devi Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA allowed the appeals of Urmila Devi and Jaishankar Prasad, setting aside the provisional attachment of a residential plot under the PMLA. The attachment was based on allegations that the appellant had received ₹10 lakh from proceeds of crime arising out of a cooperative bank fraud involving over ₹598 lakh.
The Tribunal found the attachment unsustainable, noting that:
- The appellants were neither named in the FIR nor in the ECIR.
- No material evidence or witness statement established receipt of ₹10 lakh by the appellant.
- Even the appellant’s own statement did not admit such receipt.
- The property in question was purchased in 2006 for ₹50,000, which was not disproportionate to the appellant’s income.
The Tribunal also criticized the lack of substantive linkage between the alleged proceeds of crime and the attached property, observing that mere suspicion cannot justify attachment under PMLA.
Accordingly, holding that the attachment lacked evidentiary basis, the Tribunal set aside the orders and allowed the appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
By this appeal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short the Act of 2002), a challenge has been made to the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming provisional attachment order dated 15.11.2021.
