Hiding proceeds of crime solid ground for trial in money laundering case, says Madras HC
By engineering a trick to destroy the money trail, the accused cannot contend that he/she must be exonerated because proceeds of crime have not been identified, wrote the bench.
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: It is enough to establish the generation of proceeds of crime in a money laundering case and establishing the money trail is not mandatory, held the Madras High Court.
The HC observation came while hearing a petition on the ED case of illegal quarrying of granite at the Madurai bench. Drawing an analogy, the division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and R Poornima said one can only point out the hole into which the rat escaped, as it might have exited through the other side of the hole.
The defence cannot argue that there cannot be a prosecution unless the rat is found. The offence of concealing the proceeds of crime is more than enough to hold the accused guilty, held by the division bench while dismissing a criminal revision petition.
By engineering a trick to destroy the money trail, the accused cannot contend that he/she must be exonerated because proceeds of crime have not been identified, wrote the bench.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) need not demonstrate where the money eventually went, establishing the generation of proceeds of the crime itself is enough, held the bench.
The permission for quarrying minor minerals at Melur was granted to Deepa Impex India Private Limited in 1989. It was alleged that the directors of the company KC Chandran and his wife C Chandra were involved in the criminal conspiracy and illegally quarried granite stones from the nearby lands and non-lease patta lands.
The authorities of Geology and Mining, after conducting a detailed survey, arrived at a conclusion that Rs 436.88 crores worth of minerals were illegally quarried and the accused have made unlawful gain to the tune of Rs 261.89 crores.
The local police booked 8 persons including the petitioners, and a chargesheet was submitted before the Melur judicial magistrate. Based on the investigation, ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against the petitioners. After the investigation, ED found the petitioners committed the offence under Section 2 (1) (x) and (y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The ED attached a property that the petitioners purchased with the money generated from the scheduled offence. Denying the charges, the petitioners moved a petition, before the special court, seeking to discharge them from the case. As the plea was dismissed in March 2024, the couple moved the criminal revision petition.