Tasmac scam: Madras HC questions ED's powers to seal premises of bizmen
A division bench of Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan pilloried the central agency over the legality to seal the premises owned by the two persons only because they were not available when it went for a search. The questions were raised while hearing the petitions filed by Ravindran challenging the ED's action.
'Your people often say the money laundering act (PMLA) is evolving but we find the authorities are evolving by expanding the scope (of powers),' the bench commented.
The ED's counsel explained that premises were not sealed but notices were pasted to the effect that the premises 'shall not be opened', besides asking them to contact the agency. The counsel said that the agency wanted to search the premises and since no one was available, they had to paste the notices.
Stating that the agency has not even treated them as accused in the money laundering proceedings, the counsel said it has to search the premises based on credible information and independent materials. He also filed a sealed cover to the court.The bench wondered why should the petitioners cooperate with the agency when they are not an accused in the laundering proceedings?
The bench likened the action of the ED to a particular method used by the police, which, the bench said, would arrest the brother of an accused if the latter is not available.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
ED records complainant's statement in probe against Purshottam Chavan
MUMBAI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday recorded the statement of a 57-year-old businessman and complainant in a money laundering case against Purshottam Chavan, husband of a Maharashtra cadre Indian Police Service officer, and others. The businessman had complained that he and 18 others were duped of ₹24.78 crore by Chavan and other accused who promised them homes at cheap rates under various government schemes. (Shutterstock) The businessman's statement was recorded under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at ED's office at Ballard Estate in south Mumbai. He was at the ED office from around 12.30pm to 9.30pm and told investigators that was introduced to Chavan in December 2019 and Chavan visited his house in Colaba a few months later in 2020 to get his signature on an agreement for sale of a 3-bedroom flat in Prabhadevi. He further said that Chavan had claimed that the sale process of flats under government schemes was prolonged and had advised him to keep the matter confidential and not take any photocopies of signed documents. In all, the businessman had paid Chavan around ₹3.33 crore for the 3-bedroom flat that was worth around ₹7-7.5 crore in the open market, he told investigators. The businessman's advocate, Mohan Tekavde, who accompanied him to the ED office, told HT, 'The proceeds of crime were converted into untainted property by committing forgery and cheating.' An ED official said that the agency would take the required steps soon. The ED began probing the case after registering an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) based on two first information reports (FIR) registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai police in January and February this year, said ED officials. One of the EOW FIRs pertained to the businessman and 18 others being duped by Chavan while the other was related to Chavan and other accused duping a few persons of ₹7.42 crore by promising them plots of land owned by the government and the Bombay Port Trust at discounted rates. The EOW cases were registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to cheating, criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation, forgery, forgery of valuable securities, wills, and other important documents, punishment for forgery committed with the intention of cheating and use of a forged document or electronic record as genuine. Last May, the ED had arrested Chavan in a separate money laundering case related to alleged fraudulent withdrawal of TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) refunds worth ₹263.95 crore from the Income Tax department. Chavan was arrested for alleged possession, concealment, and diversion of a part of the proceeds of crime in the case, and is currently in judicial custody. During searches at Chavan's Mumbai residence in 2024, the ED had unearthed documents of properties registered in the name of different individuals and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). After thorough scrutiny, which included verification with state government authorities and banks, the ED discovered that all the recovered documents, except two, were dubious, said agency sources. Chavan has denied all allegations against him in the ED probe.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Madras HC upholds ED action on Xiaomi under FEMA
The Madras high court has upheld the Enforcement Directorate's action against Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Xiaomi under the foreign exchange management act (FEMA), in which the agency had ordered seizure of deposits worth ₹5,521 crore, stating that it cannot 'interfere' at this stage with the opinion formed under the FEMA rules. Madras HC upholds ED action on Xiaomi under FEMA The financial crimes probe agency had alleged that Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd had remitted abroad foreign exchange worth ₹5,521 crore between 2015 and 2022 in the form of royalty payments to parent companies in violation of the law, and attached equivalent funds of the company in April 2022. The seizure was confirmed by an adjudicating authority or AA (a special director rank officer in ED) in September that year, which also issued a notice to the company stating it has 'formed an opinion' that an inquiry should be held in this case. Xiaomi India and its chief financial officer, Sameer B S Rao, through a batch of petitions, challenged the attachment, AA's formation of opinion under FEMA rules and the complaint filed by ED in June 2023. Declining to quash the proceedings, justice N Anand Venkatesh said in his order on June 25, 'It is not necessary for this Court to go deep into the reasons arrived at by the first respondent while forming an opinion. This Court only wanted to satisfy itself as to whether the first respondent had applied his mind and formed an opinion. Prima facie, there is application of mind on the part of the first respondent and at that stage, since it is the commencement of the proceedings towards actual adjudication, even a strong suspicion is enough to form an opinion.' Underlining why courts should not interfere in such cases, justice Venkatesh said - 'To understand it from the standpoint of view of criminal jurisprudence, it is more in the nature of taking cognizance of a complaint or a police report where strong suspicion is enough to proceed further with the trial. In cases of this nature, the courts must be wary while interfering with the further proceedings since the adjudication proceedings is at the nascent stage and only after formation of the opinion, the notices are provided with an opportunity of personal hearing to defend themselves'. '....this court is not inclined to interfere with the opinion formed by the first respondent (AA) under Rule 4(3) of the FEMA Rules,' the order adds. The high court, however, directed the ED to allow Xiaomi to inspect all the investigation records stating that 'Only if those documents are furnished to the petitioners (Xiaomi), they will be able to effectively defend themselves during the adjudication proceedings'. 'Hence, the missing documents from the entire record of investigation shall also be traced and furnished to the petitioners,' the order added. While seizing Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited's funds worth ₹5,551.27 crore in April 2022, ED had alleged that the company unauthorisedly remitted this amount in guise of royalty abroad which constitute violation of Section 4 of the FEMA. 'Such huge amounts in the name of royalties were remitted on the instructions of their Chinese parent group entities. The amount remitted to other two US based unrelated entities were also for the ultimate benefit of the Xiaomi group entities,' the ED had said then. Asserting that remittances began from 2015, a year after the company launched its operations in India, ED said 'Xiaomi India is a trader and distributor of mobile phones in India under the brand name of MI. It procures completely manufactured mobile sets and other products from the manufacturers in India. It has not availed any service from the three foreign based entities to whom such amounts have been transferred.' 'Under the cover of various unrelated documentary façade created amongst the group entities, the company remitted this amount in guise of royalty abroad which constitutes violation of Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The company also provided misleading information to the banks while remitting the money abroad,' ED, which started a probe against Xiaomi in February 2022, said at that time. HT has reached out to Xiaomi for a comment.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bank balance of Rs. 14.06 crore, 2 houses, 7 apartments: ED attaches retired Haryana IAS officers' assets
The Enforcement Directorate has provisionally attached assets of Haryana cadre retired IAS officer Murari Lal Tayal in an ongoing investigation against him and others under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The total assets provisionally attached are worth several crores, including two houses and seven apartments located in Chandigarh, New Delhi, and Gurgaon, as well as a bank balance of approximately Rs. 14.06 crore. ED took this action on June 30, but made an official announcement about it on its social media platforms Monday. The Central agency is conducting an investigation against Tayal and others in the matter of disproportionate assets allegedly amassed by Tayal while he was serving as the principal secretary to the then-Haryana chief minister and senior Congress leader Bhupinder Singh Hooda, and during Tayal's tenure as a member of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From March 6, 2005, to October 31, 2009, Tayal served as PS/CM and from November 30, 2009, till December 31, 2014, he served as a member of CCI. ED had taken over the investigation in the case based on the First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation. In its FIR, CBI alleged that from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014, Tayal had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. ED had been investigating the financial records of Tayal, his wife, Savita Tayal, and son, Kartik Tayal, including their Income Tax returns and other financial transactions. CBI registered the first FIR on August 12, 2015, regarding alleged irregularities related to land acquisition in Manesar. Based on the investigations conducted by CBI in the first FIR, the investigating agency registered a second FIR in 2017 against Tayal, pertaining to his alleged disproportionate assets. Savita Tayal retired as the principal of a government college in 2012, and was appointed as a member of the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). She retired from HPSC in 2016.
