PMLA case: Karthi Chidambaram challenges order, goes to HC

Chennai, Dec 9 (PTI) The Madras High Court on Tuesday ordered notice to the ED on an appeal filed by Congress MP Karthi Chidambaram, challenging an order of the appellate tribunal that dismissed his appeal against an order passed by the adjudicating authority on attachment of properties in a money laundering case.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice M M Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and posted after three weeks, further hearing of the case.

The HC notice to the ED came on the appeal filed by Karthi, challenging an order of the appellate tribunal that dismissed his appeal against an order passed by the adjudicating authority, confirming the provisional attachment of his properties worth Rs 1.16 crore by the central enforcement agency in connection with a money laundering case related to Aircel-Maxis case, under the provisions of PMLA.

In his petition, Karthi submitted that according to CBI, on March 13, 2006, the Foreign Investment Promotion Board of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India granted approval to M/s Global Communications Services Holdings Limited, Mauritius (M/s GCSHL) to invest in Aircel Ltd., a telecommunications company.

The CBI, which probed the allegations in this regard, filed an FIR on October 9, 2011. The ED also registered a complaint under the PMLA. The CBI filed the charge sheet on August 29, 2014 in the Aircel-Maxis case. Pertinently, his name neither appears as an accused nor as a suspect in the FIR and the charge sheet.

While so, on September 23, 2017, the ED provisionally attached his properties worth Rs 1.16 crore. The Adjudicating Authority also passed the confirmation order. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal, which was "erroneously dismissed" by the Appellate Tribunal, Karthi contended.

As on the date of the passing of the confirmation order on March 12, 2018, no proceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA were pending since no prosecution complaint had been filed.

Hence, the limitation prescribed under the relevant provisions of law stood unsatisfied and therefore, the provisional attachment stood lapsed as on that date. Thus, the confirmation of the attachment was a dead letter, and the right to attach stood extinguished.

Admittedly, the prosecution complaint arraigning him was filed subsequently on June 13, 2018, which has no bearing on the instant case. PTI COR VGN VGN SA