Case Details: Ashok Mangal vs. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur [2026] 183 taxmann.com 40 (SAFEMA-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Balesh Kumar & Rajesh Malhotra, Member
-
S. Vasudevan Mahendra Singh, Adv. for the Appellant.
-
Abhimanyu Kaul, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, an investigation by ED revealed that one ‘M’, Accounts Assistant at the Office of the Divisional Finance Manager, North Western Railway, was under investigation for alleged embezzlement of government funds.
As per the charge sheet, during the investigation, it was revealed that from 17.08.2006 to 03.05.2011, ‘M’, while working as a Cheque Writer, fraudulently issued a total of 94 cheques, worth Rs. 4.16 crore, of different Treasury Banks of railways in his own name and deposited the same in his own different bank accounts.
He withdrew huge proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 3.68 crore in cash through cheques and from ATM and also issued cheques in the name of others and used the embezzled amount for his own purposes. In this way, he committed fraud to the extent of Rs 4.16 crore and caused a huge loss to the Railway Exchequer.
An investigation also revealed that ‘Cash money’ of Rs. 60 lakh was deposited in the accounts of the appellant (Assistant Divisional Finance Manager in the Office of the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Western Railway) and his wife, as he tendered amounts to both of them from time to time. The said deposits were clearly out of the embezzled amount given by ‘M’ and point towards the direction regarding the involvement of the appellant in the offence of money laundering.
Further, movable and immovable properties were acquired by the appellant and his wife from the proceeds of crime.
SAFEMA Held
It was noted that the appellant had actively colluded and assisted ‘M’ in layering, use and projection of tainted money, as untainted, and hence, the appellant’s involvement in money laundering was not completely ruled out.
Thus, the impugned order passed by ED provisionally attaching (PAO) appellant’s properties to the extent of Rs. 60 lakh and the subsequent order of Adjudicating Authority confirming said PAO, was justified.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] 140 taxmann.com 610 (SC)/MANU/SC/0924/2022 [Para 6]
- Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 [Para 8] followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] 140 taxmann.com 610 (SC) (para 6)
- Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement [2022] 140 taxmann.com 472 (Delhi) (para 8)
- Sadananda Nayak v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [FPA-PMLA-5612/BBS/2023, dated 14-10-2024] (para 8)
- Smt. Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 (para 8).
The post Property Can Be Attached Without Direct Money Laundering Charge | SAFEMA appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
