Case Law Details
Stealth Bridge Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
PMLA Tribunal Orders Release of Attached Bank Account on Deposit of Alleged Proceeds of Crime
The PMLA Appellate Tribunal directed the release of a provisionally attached bank account after the appellant company agreed to deposit ₹10 lakh, representing the alleged proceeds of crime, with the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The amount is to be kept in a fixed deposit or dealt with in accordance with law and will remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings.
The appellant contended that ₹10 lakh had been credited to its account through two cheques by unknown persons. Upon noticing the credit, it immediately contacted the bank to ascertain the sender’s details and attempted to return the amount through RTGS. However, the destination account was found to be closed. The appellant maintained that it was not claiming any right over the amount and sought release of its attached bank account.
The ED opposed the plea, arguing that the appellant was aware of the source of the funds and could not claim innocence. Without expressing any final opinion on the rival contentions, the Tribunal noted the appellant’s willingness to deposit the entire disputed amount and held that such deposit would adequately protect the interests of the investigation.
Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered that upon deposit of ₹10 lakh within eight weeks, the provisionally attached bank account be released, while making it clear that the deposited amount would remain subject to the final adjudication of the case. The appeal was disposed of on these terms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
The counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that his client would deposit the entire amount of proceed of crime with the ED which may be kept either in FD or utilized by the ED as per the provisions of the law for which appellant would not question that.
The statement aforesaid has been made in the background that the appellant received Rs. 10 lakhs through two cheques in his account. It was unknown to the appellant, therefore, he immediately contacted the bank officials on the next date to find out the details about the persons who sent the cheque or their account number. The appellant could get the account number and immediately through RTGS tried to refund the amount but the account was found closed. In any case, appellant is not claimant of that amount but his bank account has been provisionally attached. It may be released with receipt of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, said to be proceed of crime.
The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that amount was received by appellant knowing it well who is sending because it was received from the RTGS. Therefore, the appellant is not an innocent person.
I have considered the rival submissions and find that appellant is not denying receipt of the amount from the accused though to be innocent while serious allegation has been made by the counsel for the respondent. In any case, to settle the issue, the appellant has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with the ED within eight weeks and in that case, the amount may be kept in the FD. It would remain subject to final outcome of the trial and the bank account provisionally attached by the respondent would be released. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid.
Author Bio
