E-Paper
Panchkula plot allotment case: ED springs surprise by filing chargesheet before CBI could
Attachment of industrial plots would have become invalid after 365 days of confirmation by adjudicating authority
The recent move of the enforcement directorate (ED) to file a prosecution complaint (a chargesheet) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a trial court against former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 21 others in Panchkula industrial plots allotment case came as a surprise for the official circles.
Reason: The CBI probing the alleged “currying of favour” by Hooda to his acquaintances in allotments is yet to submit a chargesheet for the predicate offences registered under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. In fact, CBI is yet to seek sanction from the state government to prosecute Hooda and others, a mandatory requirement now under the Act.
ED’s chargesheet filed in a trial court on February 15 thus triggered discussions on why the agency submitted a chargesheet charging the accused for money laundering before the CBI, probing the predicate offence, could do so. ED says that every scheduled offence is a predicate offence and the occurrence of the same is a pre-requisite for initiating investigation into the offence of money laundering.
The predicate offences are investigated by agencies such as police, customs, SEBI, NCB and CBI, under their respective Acts, the ED says.
‘Time limit of 365 days was coming to an end’
Legal experts said the answer to ED’s urgency in submitting the chargesheet lays in the 2019 amendments made in the PMLA which now provided that attachment of property involved in money laundering will remain valid during the period of investigation for 365 days.
In this case, the 14 industrial plots were attached by ED in August 2019 and the attachment was confirmed by the adjudicating authority in February 2020.
“Once the attachments have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority, the ED will have to submit a chargesheet in court within 365 days. Otherwise, these attachments would become invalid,” said a law expert. ED officials did not respond to a list of queries e-mailed to them.
‘Money laundering a standalone crime’
Secondly, an explanation inserted in 2019 for removal of doubts about Section 44 of the PMLA states “the jurisdiction of special court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial.”
Experts say that the explanation was inserted to insulate the trial of money laundering offences from the outcome of the trial of the predicate offence by an agency like CBI. “The ED says money laundering is a standalone offence. The amended law means that any order passed by a court with regards to a predicate offence will not have a direct bearing on the trial of offence under money laundering law. In a nutshell it means that even if an accused is discharged by the CBI court, it will not affect his role or involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime,” said an IPS officer.
However, the Delhi high court in at least two cases has ruled otherwise.
