Vignesh Jewellery Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)
Huge Receipts from Accused Jeweller Without Corresponding Gold Sales Justify Retention of Seized Jewellery Under PMLA: SAFEMA Tribunal
Summary: The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has upheld the retention of gold jewellery and bullion seized from two jewellery concerns which had received substantial amounts from an accused jeweller without establishing corresponding genuine sales.
Background of the case
An FIR was registered against M/s Pranav Jewellers, its founder, his wife and the branch manager on allegations that investors were induced to invest in various schemes on false promises of high returns.
It was alleged that the funds collected from investors were diverted through bogus purchases and that corresponding bogus closing stock was created in the books. The offences alleged included Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act.
Based on the scheduled offences, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR and conducted searches at several premises connected with M/s Pranav Jewellers.
| Appellant | Property seized |
|---|---|
| Vignesh Jewellery | Gold ornaments weighing 3,717 grams |
| Ruby’s Jewellery | Gold jewellery and bullion weighing approximately 5,885.140 grams, including 330 grams of bullion |
The Enforcement Directorate filed applications under Section 17(4) of the PMLA seeking retention of the seized property. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the applications. Both jewellers challenged the retention order before the Tribunal.
