Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 18August, 2022 at 20:08 IST
In the case of Rana Ayyub Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday barred the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from taking any further action against the journalist regarding the properties that had been attached by the agency due to allegations of money laundering under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Yashwant Varma issued notice on Ayyub’s plea against a provisional attachment order passed on February 4 by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022.
The court also restrained Ayyub from disposing of or creating any third-party rights or encumbering the property forming the subject matter of the provisional attachment order.
“Till the next day of listing, the respondent shall be restrained from taking further steps as explained and examined under section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner shall also stand restrained from disposing of or creating any third-party rights or encumbering the property which forms the subject matter of the provisional order of attachment,” the court ordered.
The PMLA Act states that once a provisional attachment order is passed by the concerned authority, the property of any person involved shall remain attached for a period of 180 days, startingfrom the date of the passing of such order and until pending the confirmation of the attachment order by the adjudicating authority.
According to the PMLA Act, if the property is found to be involved in money laundering by the Adjudicating Authority, it confirms that the provisional attachment order under Sec. 8(3) has been passed. Thereby, the property remains attached for 365 days or till the pendency of proceedings related to the offence under the act.
The authority rendered as functus officio as the plea claimed that the proceedings before the concerned authority, were no longer maintainable.
On November 17, While posting this matter for a further hearing, the court also sought a response from the ED.
On February 4, 2022, According to the terms of the PMLA Act, a provisional attachment order was passed by the concerned authority. Thereafter, a show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the PMLA Act was issued. To this notice, Rana Ayyub filed her reply on April 16, 2022.
It adds,
“The continuance of the provisional attachment and the proceedings U/S 8 of PMLA despite the validity of the provisional attachment order having expired in terms of sec. 5(1) and 5(3) PMLA, renders the attachment and the consequent proceedings illegal, and violates the petitioner’s constitutional right under Article 300A of the constitution which states that ‘no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law’.”
