New Delhi:

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday said it has attached fresh assets worth Rs 4 crore as part of a money laundering investigation against a Chinese national staying “illegally” in India and his associate.

It said the Chinese national’s associate allegedly indulged in a host of criminal activities like gambling, prostitution and secret clubs for people from China.

The probe pertains to the Chinese man identified as Xue Fei who was first booked by the Special Task Force (STF) of the Uttar Pradesh Police in Noida, near Delhi.

The attached properties are in the form of bank and fixed deposits of Rs 3.12 crore and an immovable property (residential flat) worth Rs 60 Lakh situated at SAS Nagar in Mohali, Punjab “beneficially owned” by Ravi Natvarlal Thakkar, a close associate of Xue Fei, the main accused, and others, the federal probe agency said in a statement.

A provisional order was issued by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to attach these properties.

In June, assets worth Rs 13.51 crore were attached by the ED in this case.

The Chinese national was staying “illegally” in India and he along with Thakkar and others was “running and controlling” two hotels and clubs named Luckin Club Private Limited and Tianshang Renjian Private Limited in the National Capital Region (NCR) “exclusively” for Chinese nationals, especially those who used to enter and stay in India illegally, the ED said.

“Various illegal activities and services like gambling and prostitution by underage girls were being carried by Xue Fei and his cartel in these hotels/clubs,” it said.

The agency alleged that the accused opened multiple paper (bogus) companies with “puppet or dummy directors” as they operated various instant loan apps (Internet-based applications) like Rupee Plus, Lucky Wallet, Flash Paisa, Paisa Karo, Hi Paisa, Radha Money and the likes under the umbrella of such companies.

“They were charging heavy interest rates and, in case of delayed payment of EMI, they obtained the personal data of borrowers and used to blackmail and threaten them in the guise of loan recovery,” the ED probe found.

This way, it said, they cheated borrowers spread across the country and collected “huge amounts” running in crores of rupees, which they infused into a web of companies by way of “circular transactions” through bogus or shell companies controlled by the Chinese cartel.

The two and their associates were also involved in illegal trade of e-waste by extraction of PCB (printed circuit board), mobile chip and motherboard, the agency said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking review of its verdict which held that a person cannot be booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by invoking Section 120B of the IPC if the alleged criminal conspiracy was not related to a scheduled offence under PMLA.

Section 120B of IPC provides for punishment for a criminal conspiracy.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition seeking review of the November 29, 2023 verdict that also said it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.

“Applications seeking hearing of the review petitions in Open Court are rejected. Delay condoned. We have perused the judgement and order dated November 29, 2023 which has been sought to be reviewed. There is no error apparent on the record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review. Review petitions are dismissed,” the bench ordered in its recent order.

On November 29, the top court held, “The offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule.” In the verdict, the top court had interpreted the provisions of the PMLA and said while giving effect to the legislature’s intention, if two reasonable interpretations can be given to a particular provision of a penal statute, the court should generally adopt the interpretation that avoids the imposition of penal consequences.

In other words, a more lenient interpretation of the two needs to be adopted, it had said.

“The legislative intent which can be gathered from the definition of the scheduled offence under clause (y) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the PMLA is that every crime which may generate proceeds of crime need not be a scheduled offence. Therefore, only certain specific offences have been included in the schedule,” it had said.

The bench had said that allowing criminal conspiracy to be a scheduled offence by itself, without any link to the scheduled offence included in the PMLA, would make the schedule “meaningless or redundant”.

“If section 120B of IPC can be treated as a stand alone offence to attract prosecution under the PMLA, by that logic, a complaint under the PMLA can be filed where the allegation is of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence which is not a scheduled offence,” it said.

The bench had said only because there is a conspiracy to commit an offence, the same does not become an aggravated offence.

“Conspiracy is an agreement between the accused to commit an offence,” it said, adding the interpretation suggested by the ED will defeat the legislative object of making only a few selected offences as scheduled offences.

The bench held, “It cannot be the legislature’s intention to make every offence not included in the schedule a scheduled offence by applying section 120B. Therefore, in our view, the offence under Section 120B of IPC included in Part A of the schedule will become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is to commit any offence already included in Parts A, B or C of the Schedule.” The top court had pronounced the verdict in November, 2023 on an appeal against the Karnataka High Court order which had refused to quash the money laundering case against a woman, who was former vice-chancellor of Alliance University.

The ED had booked her under provisions of PMLA by invoking section 120B of IPC though the offences alleged against him were not scheduled offences.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)