PMLA Does Not Postulate Separate ‘Reason To Believe’ For Each Property Attached Provisionally Under Section 5: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, does not postulate a separate “reason to believe” for each property which stands attached under the provisional attachment order passed under Section 5 of the enactment. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by M/S Gold Croft Properties Private Limited challenging the single judge’s order which upheld the order of PMLA Adjudicating Authority disposing of its application seeking deferment of the proceedings before on the ground that the Bench suffered from “coram non-judice”. “A perusal of the Provisional Attachment Order and the complaint shows that the PAO itself contains all the reasons with the competent authority to believe that the properties which have been purchased in the name of the Appellant by using the funds of the accused are proceeds of crime, and therefore, the substantive satisfaction arrived at by the authority under Section 5 of the PMLA does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the court said. It added: “The PMLA does not postulate a separate 'reason to believe' for each of the property which stands attached under the in the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 of the PMLA.” The bench further said that the application filed by the entity that the quorum of the Adjudicating Authority was not completed could not be accepted.