Neetu Gupta Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
SAFEMA Tribunal Sets Aside PMLA Attachment Order Against Director’s Wife, Remands Case for Fresh Adjudication
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s order confirming attachment of the property of Neetu Gupta, wife of late Bharat Bhushan Roshanlal Gupta, in a PMLA case arising from the alleged ₹33.12 crore and ₹27.46 crore bank frauds involving Spectra Motors Ltd. and Spectra Industries Ltd. The ED alleged that fraudulent Letters of Credit (LCs), supported by fake invoices and transport documents, were used to siphon bank funds, leading to attachment of the appellant’s immovable property valued at ₹13.13 crore.
The appellant contended that the attached property had been acquired long before the alleged offences, that her late husband had resigned from Spectra Industries in 2016, prior to the issuance of the disputed LCs during 2017-18, and that there was no money trail connecting either him or the appellant with the alleged proceeds of crime. It was further argued that the ED had failed to establish that any proceeds of crime had been transferred to the appellant or that attachment as “equivalent value” was legally justified. The appellant also challenged the Adjudicating Authority’s order as a non-speaking order, alleging that it merely reproduced pleadings without recording findings on the issues raised.
Accepting the procedural challenge, the Tribunal held that although the Adjudicating Authority had passed a detailed order, it had failed to record reasoned findings on the appellant’s specific contentions, particularly regarding the alleged absence of a money trail and the nexus between the attached property and the proceeds of crime. Holding that Section 8(2) of the PMLA requires a reasoned adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Adjudicating Authority to examine every issue raised by the appellant and pass a speaking order after hearing both sides.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT 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 29.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO”) of the properties in the hands of different defendants which include the appellant. Aggrieved with the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant raising many factual as well as legal issues.
