Pothys loses fight against attachment of property

Justice P N Prakash, who dismissed the plea on the basis that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) under which the property has been attached is intended to economically suffocate criminals, said, “The adjudicating authority has stated that it has reason to believe that the property in question is a property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activities. Now, it is for Pothys to appear before the adjudicating authority and place their defence.” 

As per the case, Sridhar, who is said to be a local don, has about 25 criminal cases against him ranging from murder to criminal intimidation. He is now an outlaw and is said to be hiding in Dubai. While police are in the process of bringing him to India, it had also placed necessary materials before the Deputy Directorate of Enforcement for taking appropriate action against him under PMLA.

Based on this, the ED on obtaining information relating to the property holdings of Sridhar and his family registered a case under PMLA. During enquiry, it came to light that Pothys had purchased immovable properties from Sridhar’s wife Kumari and his daughter Dhanalakshmi in 2010 and in 2016 respectively. A major portion of the sale consideration has been paid by Pothys directly to the bank account of Kumari. 

During the probe, it also came to light that Kumari, a housewife, had declared her income to the Income Tax authorities which was not commensurate to the value of the properties held by her while Sridhar is not even an Income Tax assesse. 

Thus, the Deputy Director had sufficient reasons to believe that the properties sold by Kumari and Dhanalakshmi were acquired with proceeds of crime committed by Sridhar. Consequently, the Deputy Director by an order on September 2, provisionally attached the properties purchased by Pothys as per section 5 (1) of the PMLA for 180 days. 

Challenging this, Pothys had moved the Court. Justice Prakash in his order also held that, “In my opinion, PMLA seeks to fell two mangoes in one stone viz to send a stern message to offenders that they cannot enjoy the fruits of their labour and two to dissuade innocent purchasers from entering into any deal for purchase of properties from shady characters.”