Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 .
S. 2(1)(u) : “Proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained directly by property derived or obtained directly or indirectly ,by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a schedule offence or value of any such property – Offence of money laundering – Punishment for money -laundering – Allowing the Criminal Revision application the Court awarded exemplary cost Rs. 1 lakh each on complainant and Enforcement Director (ED) for invoking criminal action and harassing the Developer with criminal action – Breach of agreement – Purchaser and Developer –Law Enforcement Agencies like ED should conduct them selves within parameters of law and that they cannot take law in to their own hands without application of mind and harass citizens. [S. 3, 4, Indian Penal Code 1860 , S 120B, 406 , 418 , 420]
Police station forwarded the charge sheet to the Enforcement Director (ED). The ED lodged a criminal case against the developer. Criminal Revision Application was filed challenges legality and validity of the order dated 08.08.2014, issuing process passed by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 seeking setting aside of the order, principally on the ground that prima facie no offence whatsoever is made out under Sections 406, 418, 420 read with 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Allowing the petition the Court held that a mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment – Clearly, the allegation / charge under Section 406 of the IPC has no basis. Once it is established that there is no cheating involved under the IPC then there is no proceeds of crime involved under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA and therefore there is no Money Laundering involved under Section 3 of PMLA in the present case prosecution and ED has not made out any case whatsoever for proceeding against the Applicants before the Court under the PMLA or even under IPC. At the highest if Complainant is aggrieved due to delay in receiving possession, his remedy lies in a Civil Court under the Sale Agreement which he has already invoked. No offense of cheating or Money Laundering exists qua the prosecution and ED has not made out any case whatsoever for proceeding against the Applicants before the Court under the PMLA or even under IPC. At the highest if Complainant is aggrieved due to delay in receiving possession, his remedy lies in a Civil Court under the Sale Agreement which he has already invoked. No offense of cheating or Money Laundering exists qua the ED for reasons best known to it have supported Complainant’s false case without application of mind or without going through the record delineated herein above. ED for reasons best known to it have supported Complainant’s false case without application of mind or without going through the record delineated . CRA is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). The attachment of the two flats and garage purchased by Applicant No.1 by Respondent No. 3 – ED is cancelled. Interim Application No. 2936 of 2024 filed by Respondent No. 3 – ED is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. CRA No. 379 of 2016, with Interim Application No. 2936 of 2024 dt. 21-1-2025)
Rakesh Brijal Jain v. State of Maharashtra (Bom.)(HC) (UR)
(Coaram : Hon’ble Shri Justice Milind N. Jadhav)