Skip to main content

Liquidator Cannot Deal With Properties Attached As 'Proceeds Of A Crime' Under PMLA

In NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2019, Rotomac Global Private Limited vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bank of Baroda initiated ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against ‘Rotomac Global Private Limited’ (Corporate Debtor). After the conclusion of the ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ in absence of any viable and feasible resolution plan, the Adjudicating Authority ordered for liquidation of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. Meanwhile the Enforcement Directorate had also initiated action against the Directors of the company under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and basing on the material and evidences on record and exercising the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the ‘Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002’, passed a Provisional Attachment Order No.08/2018 dated 28.05.2018 attaching the properties which fall within the definition of ‘Proceeds of Crime’ in terms of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, provisionally lying in name of ‘Corporate Debtor’ and its Directors wherein it was further ordered that the same shall not be transferred, disposed, parted with or otherwise dealt with in any manner, whatsoever, until or unless specifically allowed to do so by the Directorate.

Subsequently, the Liquidator filed an application for direction on Directorate of Enforcement for release of assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ claiming that as per PMLA act, confiscated property should vest  absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, but these properties have charge held by lending banks. The State objected claiming first right to recover their debts from an accused.

The NCLAT agreeing with the State observed that similar question has already been decided in ‘Varrsana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement’ – Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 493 of 2018’ wherein this Appellate Tribunal taking into consideration the provisions of Section 4 of the PMLA held that Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Cide is not applicable to the criminal proceeding or any penal action taken pursuant to the criminal proceeding or any act having essence of crime or crime proceeds whereas the PMLA provisions therein relates to ‘proceeds of crime’, we hold that Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’ is not applicable to such proceeding. Further, the penalty under money laundering offence will be applicable to the individual which may include the Ex-Directors and Shareholders of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and they cannot be given protection from the ‘Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002’ and such individual cannot take any advantage of Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more