India News | Can ED Attach Properties Sans FIR over Scheduled Offence? SC Agrees to Examine
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the crucial question of whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) possessed powers under the anti-money laundering law to attach properties in the absence of a prior FIR for scheduled offences.
New Delhi, Dec 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the crucial question of whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) possessed powers under the anti-money laundering law to attach properties in the absence of a prior FIR for scheduled offences.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued a notice to one K Govindaraj and others on a plea filed by the ED against a Madras High Court verdict restraining the agency from taking action against private contractors allegedly involved in illegal sand mining.
Taking note of the submissions of Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, the bench issued the notices and observed there was a need to give a harmonious interpretation to two provisions of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Section 5 of the law empowers the ED to attach properties involved in money laundering cases.
The first provision of Section 5 mandates an FIR for attachment, while the other allows attachment without an FIR if the ED initiates a money laundering probe.
The bench may reconcile the two provisions and decide if the second proviso could be invoked independently of the first and if the outcome has implications for the ED's investigative powers besides the rights of those accused in money laundering cases.
The ED plea would come up for hearing in the week commencing February 17, 2025.
The high court previously quashed the ED's actions, stating that sand mining was not listed as a scheduled offence under the PMLA.
ED, it said, initiated proceedings without identifying any proceeds of crime, which it deemed a prerequisite for jurisdiction.
The additional solicitor general referred to an apex court judgement saying ED could seek a direction from a competent court under CrPC if the authority concerned refused to register an FIR in the main scheduled offences.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the private contractors, countered and said the ED was overstepping its jurisdiction by acting without a predicate offence.
The bench issued notice but refused to order a status quo on the provisional attachment orders.
"Your arms are so strong and long, nobody can purchase them," remarked the CJI, in reference to the ED's expansive powers.
The dispute stemmed from an ECIR (complaint) filed by the ED against the private contractors based on four FIRs alleging illegal sand mining.
The probe agency conducted searches, issued summons, and passed provisional attachment orders on the contractors' properties.
Challenging these actions, the contractors argued before the high court that the FIRs did not reveal proceeds of crime and that the ED lacked jurisdiction following which the high court found merit in the arguments and quashed the attachment orders, prompting the ED to move the top court.
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)