Attempt To Acquire Proceeds Of Crime Cannot Be Money Laundering
Special Judge granted relief to Adhunik Corporation Ltd, its then directors
Attempt To Acquire Proceeds Of Crime Cannot Be Money Laundering
New Delhi: A Delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet against Adhunik Corporation Limited and its two directors in a coal scam case lodged by the ED, saying an attempt to acquire proceeds of crime or anticipating undue benefits cannot be termed money laundering.
In his December 23 order, Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj granted relief to Adhunik Corporation Ltd (ACL) and its then directors Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Nirmal Kumar Agarwal in the case related to the New Patra Para coal block in Odisha. According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the family members and Group companies of the accused infused funds amounting to Rs50.37 crore in the garb of share capital in ACL in anticipation of “undue benefit to be derived or obtained” by ACL as a result of, or consequence to, criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence (lodged by the CBI), resulting into allotment of coal block.
The judge noted that according to the ED, the infusion of capital/ investment through the holding company in ACL was made in “anticipation” of undue benefit to be derived or obtained by ACL as a result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence. “Therefore, as per the complainant (ED) itself, the undue benefits were yet to be derived or obtained and were only anticipated,” the judge held. He noted that ED itself has stated that the accused were attempting to acquire proceeds of crime and were anticipating undue benefits, “meaning thereby the proceeds of crime had yet to come into existence.”
“Therefore, an attempt to acquire proceeds of crime or anticipating undue benefits cannot be said to be covered by the definition of money laundering because till the stage of attempt or the stage of anticipating undue benefits, there are no proceeds of crime in existence.
There was no money available for laundering,” the judge said. The judge noted that the infusion of funds had started even before the hatching of the conspiracy alleged in the predicate offence.
