[BRPORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PREVENTION OF MONEY- {LAUNDERING ACT, LOK WAVAK EMAWAN, KHAM MARKET, NEW DELATL is APPEAL NO. 4353. OF 2022 (0 No.1882 07 2001 AO No, 05,2021 DATED 15.11.2021 8 cIR/02/Dzc8 2008 BUIWE MATTER OF; Rejeah Kumar Gupta Liguidater, Ma UV Byporte Private Limited 43 Dilahad Colony, Deihi-110005 Appellant ‘vores Deputy Disecror Directorate of Enforcement, Governineat of toa, Delhi Zone, TH Ba using, 2% Floor, JLN Marg, New Delh-110002 Respondent eae 2 liga er ear oo ae || Money-toundering Act, 2002 lone wih spor! 69 4, es | [SNORE BF Cenied Copy ate Tmpaied 1 | force aa i80n2002, peed by we [20-194 | | [ptt tnt rae a | ; Sooo | [So Rppation To eekng Stari way We ender | | | passed by La. Adiicating Authors, PALA, New! 6) 05 | | bets dated 18.08.2022 in OC No. 1522/2921 slong | | | th aidan | [£7 Peteatreme rrr] ee |ANNGRORE AGERE Dae Ne SST St | Nainital Ben, Dished Coley Branch, Del \ | 30.09.2022 for ta 10,000/- Ti a aah‘VOLNE NO. ‘ARNEXORE 2-3: Copy of the Original Complaint ‘No, 1882 of 2021 filed by the Respondent 45 RINEURE A Copy Fev ATS omer h-98 ‘RHNERURE AS Gopy_of the Omer anad) 19.09.2019 passed by the Houtle National | Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi for inition of Corporate Insolvency’ Revolution Process of M/s UV Exports Privat| Limite (Conporate Debtor 4-39 16 ‘RINERURE A-6 Copy of the Public Announcement Je 17102009ealing upon the cers of 3/0 WF ‘Exports Plvate Limited for submiosisn of claim ty | creditors, I 8o-8o i ANWERURE RY Copy of named Comoe 1 creditors (COC} Report fed below the Hon'ble | Nations! Company Law Tribunal, New Deihi Benen, | 81°85 New Delt. rr | ARRDRE A Gy oe BSF RE COE ft/s Ov Expr Prat Lites [86-109 rc ‘ANNERURE “A-9” Copy of the Onder dated 11.03.2020 pasted By the Hon'ble National Company Law Teibunsl New Delhi Bench, New | Delhi to intate the Liquidation prossedings of M/s UW Exports Private Limited end appointed the Appellant as Liquidator of the M/s UV Exports Private Limited, fo3 109 ‘ARNERORE ATO Copy of For B ie, Pubic ‘Announcement forthe attention ef the Stakeholders of M/s UV Exports Private Limited fr ubalslon a aims by creditors. Mto-to 75. ‘NERORE HIT Copy fe see Saeindes | “mn committee members, i. MERE EC Lacon reed on eam id) |asoa: : Ign fobliauid@emslicom ie. M/s Baba Poode Pave" M'S | tinted, slr concern of M/s UY sapora Pat | Limite appear on 28082000 | ANNEXURE A-1S Copy of Vater died 20-00-2020 4-173I Sompliones WH Die Asn he const] ec received on easing dad 28.09.2020 | TE | ARRERURE 4 Cop of sais 56.05 7000 foes tan Ben, IND MME Breach, Hew Debi) to he Lgwiasto, TE ARERR AS Copy of na dad STOOD by Me Paka Kamar Aasiatant Dirctor (MLA 0 11419 the gto. { FD. | ANNENURE AU6 Cop 0 her Gaal OST oO repeating for reoostbn if eral one [Boba BE TARWEXORE AAT Copy of the Tima Gata | 17.11.2020, 27.11.2020 @ 02. 12.2020 by liquidator | to Mr, Panka) Kumar, Assistant Dieter (PMLA as |S Reminder fo consideration of requst unde eer dat 09.11.2020 22) ANWERORE BAS” Cooy of how Geiss Woree tinder section 8 of PMA, Act, 2022, dated (08-149, 07.01.2022 the Appel. | B.| AWNERURE AD Copy oF vey ded TOOT sent though email beore the 1A. Adiaiating 3-156 [ wstneity ‘ANNERURE A20 Copy of OO No TSSD/RORT |Rejoinder reeived through Karun Enforcement| 15.6. 163) Officer, Directorate of Enforcement, Deli Zone ~, ew Det I NEW DELEU- 110014. Ph. No. 191 9871986830 ‘Bmali- adumg29GemsiLcom Place: New Dethi Dated: 30.09.2022BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL POR PREVENTION OF MONEY- LAUNDERING ACT, LOK KAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELET 6 APPEALNO.YS93 P2022 1 (0cNo0.1582.0" 2021, 18 AO No, 05/2021 DATED 15.12.2021 W crRy02/DzcB/2019 EE or: Rejesh Kumar Gupta Lguidates, 24/5 UV Expert Private Limited 43 Dilshad Colony, Delhi-1 20008 Appellant Versus Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Gozernment of ii, Det Zone -, MINL Busing, ‘29 Foor, JUN Marg, New Delhi-i10002 “Respondent vounME [aaa Re. | T._ [Memo of Partcs Foren TS Ripe We OF oa OF Wee |tauncaring Ae, 2002 a8 amended vie at 2 of 2015, | (hereinafter referred as “the act") against order passed by) OK) ~ 14 the Ld. Adjudicnting Authority, PMLA, New Delhi in terms | of Soc. 8 of the Act, on Complaint made ty the| | Sees | |e onl itchmentOrer No 5 of 200 dtd [15.11.2021 made by the Complainant, confiraed vader | vena Compact No 58D of 2001 cheing it | [lores to Money tandeng vie oder dt | | |sRon2o22 and wan ved 2 pant 21.08.2022, | gormeracs ‘RECT ZSRRR AT CRE Cony WT RST ORT] dated 18:08,2022, passed by the Ld, Adjudicaing| *°~ NY QO geepuant (RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA) Liquidator, M/s UV Exports Privnte Limited Advocate) No -D/4725/2022 COGNSSL FOR THE APPELLANT 6-22, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSION ‘MEW DELET 110014, Ph. Now 291 9871986630, ma aduma9 gma com Place: Hew Doth Dated: 30.09.2022© BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PREVENTION OF MONEY- {LAUNDERING ACT, LOK WAVAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELETE 1 APPEAL NOYES OF 2022 Ww (0c No.1582 07 2001 PAO Wo. 05/2021 DATED 16.11.2001 ie BeiRjo2/DzcF/ 2019, CTHE MATTER OF: Rajesh Kumse Gupea Liquidator, ys UY txport Private Limited Fa Dilabiad Colony, Delbi-110008 -Appellant Deputy Director Ditectorae of Bnforcesenty ‘Government of indi, Delhi Zone I. MTL Building, 20! Foor, JUN Marg, New Delhi-110002 Respondent ‘MEMO .OF parties Rajesh Kumar Cupea iguidator, M/s UV Exports Private Limited ‘Sean ee tent sO aca 1B. oe rucno ct Liquidator, M/s UV Exports Private Limited MAMAN GUPTA (Advocate)o BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PREVENTION OF MONEY. ‘VAUNDERING ACT, LOK NAVAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKUT,AEW DRLET We APPEALNO.YE 53 or 2022 (0¢ No.1582.0¥ 2021 IN PRO Ho. 08,2021 DATED 18.11.2021 i ere/o2/D2c8/ 2019 HS MATTER. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Liquidator, M/ UY Exports Private Limited 1749 Dishad Colony, Debi-110005, ~~Appallant Versus Deputy Director Directarate of Enforcement, Government of indie, Delhi Zone -, MTNL Bung 2s! Floor, JLN Marg, New Delhi] 10002 Respondent STATUTORY APPEAL U/8. 26 OF THE PREVENTION oF monEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 (HEREINAPTER REFERRED TO AS “PMLA) AS. AMENDED VIDE ACT 2 OF 2013, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “THE ACT’) AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PREVENTION OF MOMEY.LAUNDERING ACT, NEW DELI, IN TERMS OF SECTION 8 OF THE ACT, ON COMPLAINT MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT, ARRAYED HEREIN AS RESFONDENT CONFIRMING THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER NO, 05 OF 2021, DATED 18.06.2021 MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT, CONFIRMED UNDER ORIGINAL COMPLAINT HO. 1582 OF 2021 OBSERVING IT TO EE INVOLVED IN MONEY LAUNDERING, VIDE TTS ORDER DATED 16.08.2022 WAS DBLIVERED TO APPELLANT ON 21.08.2022 1. That the present Statutory Appeal ie being fled by the AppoUant being grieved by the Order passed by the Lmmed Adjudicating Authority ‘under PMIA. Certified copy of the Impugned Order dated 18.08.2022 is fsnnened hereto #8 ARWEXURE A-1 which was delivered tothe eppelant® ‘n 21.68.2022, Copy of the Original Complaint No, 1582 of 202% fled by ‘the Respondent is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A. ‘That he Appellant i a lnwabiding citizen of India and has been appointed 18 the liquidator by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tsbusal, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi vide ite order dated 11.08.2020, ‘That itis submitted that the Learned Adjstioating authority, PALA, Tew Delhi without applying its judioiows mind “erroneously confirmed that the Frovieonal Aitachinent Order No. O5 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021, while holding that the sttachment of the propery, the subject matlcr of the present Appeal, is out of proceeds of crine and is involved in money laundering and unjustly confirmed the same, Whesees aa the Appellant humbly erases indulgence of thie Hon'ble Appellate Trbun,iinpeacog the directions & observations made by the Leatmed Adjudicating Autheiey, PMLA, New Deli constcated in terme af the Act. Copy of the Provisional Altchment Orders annesed herewith as AUNEXURE At ‘Thet shorn of detals, a bref brush of tects, necessary for the disposal of the present Appeal may be gummed up as wer: ‘That the Hon'ble National Company Law Tibunsl, Rew Delhi Bench vide it onder dated 19.09.2019 wes pleased to tgge the Corporets Insolvency, Resolution Process (horeinafr sefered se (CIRP) of H/s UV Exporta Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) by editing an Applcatice filed by Ms Ambe Aavotoods Private Limited (Operaional Creditor, smnder Section, 9 ofthe Insolvency and Bankruptey Code, 2016. The Hoatble Tribunal was further pleased to appoint the appellant i, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupte as the Interim Resolotion Professional (IRE). Copy of the Onder is annexed, herewith ANICESURE A. ‘That pursuant to the eppolntmest of the appslant, the eppellans 28 per Section 19 & 15 of Ineolvency and Bankrastry Code, 2016 made & public ‘nnousicement on 17.10.2019 calling upon the eeditre ofthe corporate er fe. Mis UV Beports Private Limited to subiit their claims before the appellant on or before 31.10.2018, Copy of the Pubic announcement Is annexed herewith oe ANMEXURE A-6 Subsequently, the appellant constituted the committee of exeitors of the ‘appellant and filed! the report certifi the constitution of the committee of creditors Before the Hon'ble National Conpany Law Tribunal, Copy of ‘he said report is aanesed herewith es ANNEXURE A-7 sou Ra Pasian® ‘That CoC in the Second meeting decided to initiate the Liquidation Proceeding against the Corporate Debtor. The CoC with » 78.42% voting Percentage passed the regofution to initiate the Liquidation proceedings of M/s UV Exports Private Limited. Subsequently the CoC in the third CoC 'eeting pested the solution to appoint the appelant as Liquidator. Coay ofthe minutes of thict COC is annexed herewith es ANNEXURE 4-8. ‘That in view ofthe above, the appellant Sleé the appilestion under Section 38(2) of the Insolvency ant Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Hamble National Company tay ‘ribunal. The Howe Nations) Company Law ‘Tribunal vide js onder dated 11.03.2029 was pleased te allow the ‘pplication and initiated the Liguidation ajainst Me UW Exports Private Limited and appointed the appellant as Liquidator of the Corparsie Debtor. Copy of the Ordar is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE 4-9, ‘That since then the sppellant has been taken charge of the functions of the Liquidetor as per the provisions of the Insolrengy and Banleruptoy Code, 2018, ‘That the appellant publiched Form - Bis, Public Annowacentent far the sttenton ofthe stekehokiers of M/s UV Export Private Limited to submit heir claims with proof on or before 10.04.2020, Copy of the aforesald ‘publication is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A -10, hereafter the Hquidator constituted the Stakeholders Committee as per the provisions and regulstion of tnsltency and Bankruptcy Cade, 2016. (Copy of the List ofstsleholders committee members ie annened hereth 2s ANNEXURE 8-11. ‘Thereafter the liquidator sold the plant and machinery of M/e'U V Exports Private Limited 28 per provisions of the Insciveney and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. ‘That on 24.00.2020 sppelant received a summons ftom Mr. Pankaj Xumar Asst, Director PMLA on mal id efpLquidgymail.cam, (7s maid ertabss tothe lguidation process of BY Rekal Foods Private Limited, a sister concer of M/s UV Exports Private Lined) aa well as through Speed Post to sppear before him on 28.09.2020 and the liquidetor eppesred before him on schedule time ard explained to him sbout the lnsolveney land Bankruptcy Code, 2016 process and answered his queries, Copy of ‘the salt summons are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-12.Later he took the statement of Liquidator and the next date was given to him for submission of documents and the liquidator iz the same accordingly, ‘eat on compliance withthe ércctons of te concerned office the details ‘wore provided a8 per Leer dated 29,092020 is annexed herewith © ANNEXURE A-13. ‘That Uquidator received an e-mail dated £0.09,2020 from indian Ban, IND MSME Branch, New Delhi as under:- Tn compliance of oral request of Mr. Pa Kumar, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, GOL MOF on cited matter we Nave put a hold on ‘account No, 6890408942 maintained in the name of offset fguidator Mr Fajesk Kumar Gupta i the syle "UV Bxpors Pot, Lin liidation Rajesh umer Qupea We have requested Mr. Pankaj Kumar to send us a writin communication to ‘Thief for your infomation, Please make a nat of." (Copy of seme is annexed herecith end rearked at ANNERURB A-14, ‘Teat on 29.10.2020 Mr. Pant) Kumar wené an exalt te Hguidator om ‘oil id: veel lauld@mmal.eom as under: “Vehictes of Vinod Sirohi Usha Sirohi andl tir companies are the subject matter of investigation under PMLA. You are requested to rot to enter ary sale/ purchase with the said vehicies”” Copy of the ead summons are annexed horevith at ANNEXURE 4-16, 1 isto be submit uber Rajesh Kamar Gupta is acting es the Liquidator ‘in oro companies ie, M/s UV Exports Prt Lid. and M/s Bshel Foods Pre, ltd. of Usha Sirobi and Vinod Sirohi and lguidator was in physcial possession ofthe vehicles and symbolic posession of ane veel of M/s UV Exports Pvt. Lid and physclal postetsion of vehicle of M/s Eshal Foods Pt. Ee. 4 is to be submitted chat one vehicle model Tain Neson is tying at 258, ‘Ceriappa Marg, Sainik Ferm, New Delhi and as per the information sonilable o me the owner of the house redes outside Inia, Parte, it vas inormed tothe Iigidator and the elie. by Pa Spang ope(Director of M/s, UV Exports Limited) hat the ey ofthe carts ying inside the House. However, ater due efforts and struggles the liquidator and valuers got the permission tom the gusrd present thereby and the valuction ofthe said vehicle was done but they were not allowed to take the possession as che keys were not alle, 1 ie o be submitted thet one vehicle mode! BMW isin the possession of ‘the Scoured Creditor Le. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, itis submitted ‘that one vehicle model LPT is i the possesion ofthe secared creditor Le HRC Bank Limited ss per the provisions of nolvensy and Bankraptey Coe, 2016, ‘Thet the appellant requested and communtated the positioning and facts Sbou the Hquidation of M/s UV Exyorte Prete Limited to the compininent/ respondent vide letter dated 03.11.2020 and has requested revocation of orders. Copy of the said communication is marked as ANNEXURE 4-16, ‘That the appslant again equestd fhm My. Panka Kumar Asst. Director Enforcement Dirctorste to revoke the nowesiry instructions mentioned stove. Cony of the said the e-mail dated 17.12.2020, 97.11.2020 & (02.12.2020 marked as ANNEXURE &-17, ‘That the appelisat has fled an application before the Hone National Company Lave Tribunal, New Delhi Bench I under Section 60(8) of the Ingoivency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT ules seeking appropriate directions tothe complainants en to allow sale ‘of the Med Ascets of M/s U V Raper Pot id That the above mention mater tiled “Rajesh Kumar Gupta Ve [Enforcement Directorate" is stil sub juice with the Hon'ble Nations! Company Law Tribunal, Nw Delhi Bench end the next date of beeing in the sald matter is 10.11.2022 ‘That, on 03.12.2021, she appellant through speed gost received the Provisional attachment Order No. 05/2021 dated 16.11.2022 having FCIR/02/DZGR/2019/421} pertaining to Nj UV Rxporte Private Limited was being passed by the Deputy Director, Delhi Zone - il, Directorate of ‘Enforcement, ordering or Provisional attaciment ofthe fllowing assets of M/s UV Exports Private Limite, vt =f PROFS racial eure ADetails ofthe Vebie " [Siocs———[Regiscation Wo, Fansed By [Wear of] Registration TAT BEIKtITs —~fasre Bank |-—zors ‘WARUTI Giz HRIGZOSGS—| ROTAKTRANK | 2015 Tan WON [Buiacga77 ROTA BANK | —~~207s —] ‘RENAULT DUSTER | HRIoARwoo —[TcIcr BANK | 2018 —] ‘BNW 82607 [Beicvaase —"[ ROTA RANE | fois aces in te. EAS ime Belanse SDAA ije WW Bipirts Precis Lied [Re LS ORE ee 1 is submited that no attachment order for M/s Eshal Rocds Private inited have rseive, “That the respendent/complainent lesued a Show Cause Neice dated 07.01.2022 to the Appellant. Copy of the sald Notice is marked as [ANEXURE-18 for tho same appeiant haa fled the reply on 20.02.2022 (Copy ofthe said Reply is marked as ANNBURE-19. ‘That the respondent/complainant shared the OC No -1882/2021 ~ Rejoindar tothe reply filed by the Appellant cn dated 26.08.2022. Copy of the said Rejoin le masked a ANNEXURE-20 ‘That the Directorate of Enforcement has reonded the ECIR, on the basis of the cate registered by the BOW, New Lelhi beating Prat Information Report No, 196 dated 03.12.2014, under Section 409, 420, and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code agninst M/s Bush Foods overseas Pre Lid, Vikram Arvest, Rie Awasty, Namita Arora, Vino Sirf and Rab Raisurana, ‘The Respondent under aforessld ECIR hue provisionally attached the roperty in question for allegedly the property aoquired by proceeds of crime, without any evidence or documenta proof which established the cate registered by the sespondent subsequantly the Learned Adjudeating ‘Authority, PMLA, New Delhi siso confirmed its Original Complaint fied by the Respondent without considering the ‘actual matrix of the case in ‘respect to the properties of the M/s UV Esporte Private Limited and theconfirmed by the Learned Agjuticating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi vie its order dated 18.08.2021, impxyyned herein. ‘That it fs submitted chat the Property attached {mentioned above) pertaining o M/s UV Exports Private Limited wae purchased by M/s. UV Exports Pevate Limited through the eourees raised by virtue of let and thas nothing to do with the alleged proceeds of crime in the present case, ‘al the aaid vohices (herein referred to ae propery) ae Aypathecaed to various banks, Further, the ald bane sccount bering -mumber 18860922198 pertains to the routine/ ondinay transaction ia the eourve of business of M/s. UV Exports Private Limited ‘That as per, Para 5.4 of the Provisional tachment Onder No.05/202t ated 18.11.2021 the alleged togus transactions happened during the ‘etiod from Ail 2014 to December 2015, Is to be specifically submitted ‘that most of the vebicles attached im thet ctder were purchased beswoea the years from 2016 t 2018 and thet 100 on finance, thereby the eaid vehicle should not be sakt to be purchased fem the proceed of erime. ‘That itis not dispute ty the present appellant in the case thet the “Subject Property’ situated at Plot No, 505, 5M Floor, DLP South Cou, New Dethi- 110017 and Plot No. 506, 5 Tir, DLF South Court, New Dei 110017 are or not the concen of proseed of crime as they ere not related in any manner to the concem of liquidation of M/e UY Exports Private Lise ‘That the Impugned Provisional Attachment Order in eapect of the subject Property isin violation of statutory mandate aa requized under Section Sti) and 5(4)() of PHILA. Further, dere inno material placed an recor whatsoever t oven remotely indicate that vehicles ancl bank accoust Pertaining to M/s U Exports Private Limited waa lavelyed with Proceeds (of Crime. AS @ matter of fact, even ifthe allegations of Complainant/ Respondent are presumed fo be true, even then itis crystal es thet the Propesty in question was acquired by M/s UV Bxporta Private Limited rough the loan facility trom various banks, Purder, the sid finance loan transaction of the vehicles is clearly reflected in the suited book af accounts of tho M/s UY Exports Pate Lisited. It is farther submitted thet since the Learned Adjudieating Authority, PMLA, New Deli bss observed and opined in He order dated 19,08,2022, based upon the Provisional Attachment Order dated 15.11.2221, tht the, ubject property has been purchased fom the funds of eleged proceeds 6 sity i10. ies 12, ® came Adjusicating Authority, PLA, New Delhi ha fled to explain a ‘o how and under which circumstances i has passed the oter to attach ‘the property In question an has further failed to explain as to what lege oes has been caused to the Compisinant/ Respondent. ‘That fis worthwhile to mention here that re Appelisnt, wit has not been named dicectly in the initial Complaint, aot named in the case First {Information Report, nor the material record based on which such yeasons ‘were formed itself merits dismissal ofthe Provisional Attachment Order tnd confinmation order of the samme by Laumed Adjudicating Autheetty, PIA, Nee Delhi Being ilies ‘That It s submitted that despite having no 2ower o jason to ettaca ‘the property in question asthe matter in being of iqudation covered under ‘the jurisdiction of NCLT, the Respondent/ Complainant has sought to make observations or arrive at purported findings on the alleged scheduled offense, Such findings are therelore non-eet. sty observations or purported filings on the alleged scheduled offense in the PAO or the OC are a pulley and eannot be looked into as the observations or purported findings on the alleged scheduled offense, being whoie without jurisdiction, shoud be expunged forthwith, ‘That f i submitted that as per Section 2¢ of the Peevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the burden of proof to prove that the alleged Proceeds are genereted fom the alleged Scheduled Offence remains ‘entirely on fo the investigation agency. There ia no legal presumotion in Section 24 shat the subject property of Mj. UW Exports Private Limited's Jn any manner connected with the ‘proceeds of crime’ Section 24 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ‘The Appellant Company declares that the sibjeet matter of the appeal is ‘within the jurisdictions of the Hoare Appelate Tesbimal within the scope ‘of ection 26 ofthe Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, uMTATIOn Ht is submited that a8 per section 26 (0; af the Prevention of Money “Laundering Act, 2002, the present appeal ie being Sled within 45 days of revealing the passing ofthe Impugned Osder and there is no delay tn fling the present ape WES Kuna rakesV4. That being aggreved in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appellant has approiched this Hon'ble Tribunal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking the invecaticn offs Powers for quashing and setting aside the onder dated 18.08.2022 in Original Compisint No. 1982/2021, arising out of Provisional Attachment ated 15.11.2021, alone with the proceedings ematsting there fom, om the following among other grounds- ‘exounps fH) BECAUSE the impugsed onier as passed by the leaned Adjicating Authority, PMLA, New Dali in a total dstegand to the ‘ights of the Appellant in respect of property in the queation of M/s ‘UV Exports Private Limited (in Uquidacon| & by turning @ blind eye ta the documents produced in due exuree, renders the impugned cnder bain aw (ii) BECAUSE she impugned order passed by the Learned Adjudicating ‘Authority, PMLA, New Delt is bad on ficts ea well as in law, as such the same cannot be sustsined é thus Is lable to set eaide qua property I question, (ii, BECAUSE the impugned onler wee passed by the Leamed ‘Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi in a mechanical manner, without application ofjadicions mind en the facts bright before the eared Adjudicsting Authority, PMLA, Rew Deli, alleging the Property in question M/s UV Exparts Peate Limited fin Heudation) ‘being involved with the procoods of crime under investigation in ferms of PMLA. As the sald assets (ichicies) sre Being purchased ‘through Ioane from varlous banks asd are hypothocated ehicles ‘hereby, cannot be termed es proceeds of erime, For instance, the said bank account bearing number 6560922128 pertains to the routine/ ondinacy transaction in the oyurse of business of M/s. UV [Exports Pritate Limited, lis) BECAUSE, the impugned onder wis passed by the Leamed Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi filed to appreciate the fact@ i) that M/S UV Export Pivete Limited is already ia Liquidation and he ‘moretorium has been already iesued and is in existence in ‘accordance to Section 35) ‘The relevant extract of Section fs mentloned herein: Section “38 (5) Subject ro sactlon 52, when 4 liquidation onter has ‘nan passed no suit or other logal proweding shal be insted by or against the comport debtor Provided that suitor other legal proweding may be instiuted by the fguidator, on Behalf of the operate debtor, with the prior approval of the adjudicating thor, BECAUSE, the impugned onler was passed by the Learned ‘Adjudicsting Authority, PMLA, New Deki filed to appreciate the fact Yat Section 32A of. Inselvency and Bankruptcy Code,2018 grants immunity to the property of the corgarate debtor hereby M/s, UV Exports Private Limited ‘The relevant extract of Section is mentioned ierein: ‘No action shall be taben against the property of the somperate debtor { relation 1 an offense comited pri tothe caimmencoment ofthe ‘corporate insolvency resolution process ofthe corporate deter, whore ‘sich property ib comered wader a reeeution plan approved by the Adfudiocting Authorty under Section 9, which results bythe change fn oomzrel of the corprate debtor to a person, ar sale of Kidation assets under the provisions of Chater II of put it of this Coe te a Person, who was not ~ ‘A promoter or the management or carta of the coparate debtor or related party of such a person or ‘A person with regard ta whom the rlocent investigating authority has ‘onthe basis of the material in ts possession reason to eliove that he had abetted or conspired for the conmesion ofthe offence, and has Submited or fied a report or @ compbint%0 the relevant statitory cexthory or court ‘hat itis submited in the case of JSW Stee! Limited Ve. Mahender Bumar Khandetwat, the provisions, sbsequenty,wt for validity a, Une Case that has been theorined to be the eaison dete lf the provision in the frst place. Perinently, against the ambiguity sunvunding the operation of nonobstante clitses, scction 824 Provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its assets from any prosecution, sttachinent, o similar proceeding upon the approval of 4 resolution plan, if the revolution pn results i charge in the management or contol ofa corporate cebtor. ‘That it is submited thet in another cae tied as Mr. Ant! Goeh the Hauldator of Varsana_tzpat_ Limited, ws. Deputy Director, Pirsctorate of Enforcement, Delhl_the Hon'ble NCLT, Kolkata Bench, Kollats held that ‘we are af she considered opinion thet a liquidetor cen proceed with the eale of the assets even if it Is liquidation under the provisions of the Code and upon completion f the sole proceedings the buyer ean take appropriate steps to release the attachment. It appears to us that the attachment and confiscation become void under section 32-8 ofthe Code" This was sho held in the mater of ir. Anil Goel the Liquidator of REL Agro Limited, Ve, Deput Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delht That it te submitted thar in the case of The Directorate of Enforcement Us. Sh Hanoi Kumar Agarwal, the XCLAT held that {here is no eoafict between the Preven of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Insolvency and Bankeuptsy Code, 2016 and sven if [Popesty has beee attached in the PMA which is Belonging to the Corporate Debtor, if CIRP is initiated, the property should become valle to Mult objects oF BC cll n resoution takes place or se of liguidation asset coeur i terms of Section 328, [BECAUSE the Learned Adjudicating Authority, PALA, New Delhi hes failed fo appreciaie the fet that as per Section 66 (5) of Insolvency sand Bankruptey Code}2016 National Company Law Trbsnal isthe Jurisdictional body in the matter pertaining to Liquidation for Conporate debtor hereby M/e. UV tparts Paivate Liste. ‘The relevant extract of Section le meutloned herein: (9) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in ary ‘thar law for the tine being in fore, the Hational Company Law Tribunal shail have jursaleion to entrain or dspace of— (fa) ey application or proceeding ly or against the conporate debtor or corporate persons;(i (hy ony claim made by or egainsttheconsomte debtor or comporate Person. inctuding claims by or against any of i subsidiaries stated in Ids ane (9 any question of priorities or any question of lar or fact, arising ont of or tn relation to tae insoinency resolution oF liquidation proceedings ofthe corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code ‘That, the Hon'ble High Court in the ease of Nth Jain, Lgwidetor, St Limited. Vs. Enforcement Directorate (December 202) held that ‘when 2 liquidation order is delivered under the IRC, the ability 0 ‘sri properties under the PMLA, 2602 no longer exists, The eaid Jndgmient squarely applies tothe present case and since the metier Ss sleady Subjudice to the NCLT, ns per Section 60(5} NCLT isthe ‘sole jurisdictional body and tt hae an overnding eect over PRILA, So, the Adjudieating Authoriy under PMLA dors not have Juwisdietion to aitach the propertke. of the Corporate Debior ‘undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. In the matter of SREY Infiastrasture Ptnance Limited Ve, ‘Sterling International Enterprises Limited \ bare perusal ofthe {acts iiustrates that on July 16, 2018, the CIRP was inaned ater ‘admission of the application under Section 7 of the 12C. Prior to this, however, en May 29, 2018, a provisional aiachment order (CPAOY divesting the extachment of tie assets purchased from the proceeds of the crime was issued. Stortly thereafter, on November 20, 2018 (Le. post the initiation cf CIRE), the said ander was confirmed by the adjudicating authoriy under he PMLA. Being sugrieved by the PAO, the resoliton professions! moved an pplication before the NCLT seeking ade-atzachment of assete, BECAUSE the impugned onler ie passed by the Learned Achadicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi by overlooking & portraying ignorance of material document produced before the Lesmed Adudiating ‘Authority, PMLA, New Deltl, thus, tre same wae passed by the ‘Learned! Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Deli to oe tine with the ‘complainant, in view of clamouring and duplicitous face of the epactzment as the department is okey representing himself the Wor'ble NCLT for the same subject mater, thereby the impugned order is bad in la, thus i Hable ta Be at ede,a © (wit) BECAUSE tne impugned order dose not disclose the besla of observations made by the Learned Adjudiesting Authority, PMLA, Now Dethi, a8 ta the nems between any proceeds af crime and the fstiached properties, Tt io submitted that in the case of Aslam Mohammed Merchant ¥/a. Competent Authority [2008 (14) SCC 126jthe Supreme Court inter aia held Js, therefor, evident that the propery sohich ie acught to be Jorfoted must be the one which tas m direct ness with the Ireome, etc. derived by wey of contravention of any of the Provisions ofthe Act or any propery sequined therein.” fis] BECAUSE os allege! in the modus operandi of the cour the respondent was not ale to establith any relevance to the fact that the money wes transfered in lieu of any sort of laundering or an leansfr for the proceeds of crime instead, they just followed the entries in the bank account. Ia the Books of accounts of M/s. UY Exports Limited the money Ie reflected us an ordinary tranaseson in the business. The Respondent has aot atiown any nemus between cash deposit inthe Banks and the pumose of fa tzanafec thereafter. Since the respondent has innovated and contrived ‘proceeds of crime" and in that process built up thestory on his owa assumptions by penasing bank accounts without probing the transactions of M/s ‘UY rexports Private Limited, the ead appellant is admitiedly neither involved in any offense, much less le sny scheduled offense, Pure ‘commercial runsactions are being branded proceeds of crime” (&) BECAUSE the assailed order severely disadvaningce the appellant fand the stakeholders in the liquidation since it eversoly affects the rights and calms. The lguidation fas stalled os a result of the Jmpugned order, destroying the aiet ofthe insolvency law to proceed ina time-bound manner. In Innosentive Industries Limited Ye, ICICI Banke cho Supreme (Court held that te objective ofthe IBC i t bring the insolvency law nvder «single umbrta fo speed up the insoluency process. Fr this reason, the IBC provides @ tme-bownd resohiton process that has to steely adhere,os si © ‘That the directions and orders of the Roforcement Direetnat, in this case, are arbitrary, sajust, and patently legal in a8 rmuch as the ‘order has been passe in contravention ofthe Pale af Lew whic hs ta Belton the Liquidation for more than two years. Further, due to the halt rade by the directions of the Enfovcement Directorate, She value of the assets of the corporste debtor has deprecated end the stakeholders of liquidation have to bear the coet. BECAUSE the impugned order was pasted, prefusicing the riehts and interess of the appellant, thus It in vielatin of principles of ‘tural justice, which cannot be sustxined inlaw as well asin terms of Section 5 of the Act. “That i is submited that in the case of The Official Liquidator, Hlah Court of Bombay v2. Arsarep Tourism Clud Resorts & others, it was held by the Hoe'se High Court of Rombay thet “The Possession of the properties of M/s City Lmeutines fui) Led anc fe Cty Reaicom Lid fin Liquidation shall be handed over by the Bxforcement Directorate and Bcononie Offence Wing tural or ‘whomscevsr is found im possession there to the Offi Liidator along with the detaits of the hank account of thoee companies to the Offa’ Liquidator and the cnaxnts ig i shoe accounés along with Interest acerued if any, within two weeks fiom the date of comomunication ofthis order” [BECAUSE the Department/Respondest has failed jo make out a cose to indicate that ‘proceeds of crime’ have been driven aut of echedule offense’ which is a mandatory requirement U/a Sila) of the Prevention of Maney Laundering At, 2302. BECAUSE as provided under Section 5(}) of the PMLA, the espondent hss not produced any cigent evidence to show even ‘remotely dat the Appellant isin possesion af any proceeds of crime sand the same are Bkely to be conceal, transferred or dealt with in ‘any manner which may result ia frustrating any proceeding relating tem to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under thie chapter, ‘The reagonable belief of the Respondent under section S{2) of the PMLA is baseless, imaginary, and a fgment of imagination as they ‘have aossly filed vo show that any material on record even remotely suggests possession of lloed proces ferme,(iv) BECAUSE the proceedings under PMLA are Hey to be long time, ‘ening wich it shell be unjust by t3e Depastment/ Respondent to ‘subjugate the Appellant to unnecessary proceedings. The object of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Ie to maxcmise the value ofthe assets of the Corporate Debtor. In the instance cate the halt imposed due to the actions of the Respondent/ Complainant’ sve zesulted in {deprecation ofthe value ofthe attached assets. fax) BECAUSE for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the attachment ‘and consequent confiscation would emount to pretrial incarceration, and inflicting of suck hardships onte the Appellant which cannot be compensated In terme of money, ‘teil BECAUSE there is no matalal on =econt $9 show conspiracy Yetween Appellant and accused in schedile offense and PMLA fens and ne culpable knowledge ie attributed tothe Appell. ‘vif BECAUSE grave and irreparable loss und prejudice willbe cased to the Appellant if the reliefs a8 prayed are not granted whereas no loss or prejudice shall be caused to the Compininant/ Respondent if such reliefs are granted {evil BECAUSE the Learned Adfudioating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi {eilod t appreciate the fact regarding the defiant bebaviour of the Enforcement Directorate, us no persoral propety of Me. Usha Siro {6 Mr. Vinod Sirohi were attached. However, the mesgre properties of Mjs UV Biports Private Limited were being attached. Further, i is pertinent to mention hereby thet to inordinate the amount of attachient, te respondent /eumplbicant haa unreasonably attached the assets of M/s UW Exports Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor {In Liquidation). (8s) BECAUSE the Appellant isin need ofthe subject property latiached sects since he has to full his statutory duty 26 liquidator and the olay in possession willed to escalation of costa and te, Further, 1 Is pertinent to mention thatthe liquidator has so far paid fr al, maintenance costs assoclted with the aforementioned attached ‘assets out of bis own pocket. The actioned by the Respondent/ (Complainant has hindered the spirit mad process of liquidation,45. v. 18. 1s, 4M fe submitted that grave and ireporable loss and prejudice wil be cause t the Appellant if te reliefs as prayed are not ‘ented whereas no toss or prejudice shall be catieed to the ‘Ceanplainant if such reliefs are granted ‘That the Appellant craves leaves of thie Howble Appliate Thiteinal to ‘ane any other adtional/further grounels) as may te available during ‘the pendleney of the present appeal at the tine of final disposal of the spatter, The Appelians hss not approached any other foram for seeking such flict aguinst the impugned Provisional ftachment Order and order of the Learned Addicting Authority, PELA, New Delhi impugned herein, However, the matter in regard to the freeing of Account and not to sale ‘or purchase of any asset of M/s UV Bugorts Private Liited is already ‘sub juice in Hor‘ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Ben, Now Deli ‘The Requisite Court fe in form af af for Ra 10,000, sue by Meinl Bank, Dilshad Colony Branch, Delhi under mumber 128192 dated 30.08.2022 in the name of the Rogisirsr of this Tsibunal ia annexed hereto 2s Annexnr9 A. ‘The Present Appeal has bees fled in the interest of Justice and the ‘Appellant reserves his right toad any atonal grounds for challeneing ‘the “mpugned Order, The Appellant also reeervee ie right to add any further grounds in suppor of his onse. The Appilate craves teave to this Hon be Tritanal to claim any such relief aobsequently. Al the anncxres annexed to the present Appeal are true copies of their respective criginale® PRAYER In ght of the foregoing submissions, the Appeliant most cespecthity raya thet this Hone Tribunal may be pleased to ‘Allow and tae on record the present Appeal; Pass an order thereby setting ase the enier dated 18.08.2022 fa OC No, 1882/2022 in reference to the assets of M/a. UV ‘Sxports Private Limited and sty the proceedings emanating therefrom, 98 the senne is illegal, non-Rst, without jnisdieton, incorrect tagether with heury ensta In favour of the Appellant sand againet the Respondents & Pass on order thereby Direction may be passed to the [Respondent toot to proceed withthe attachment ofthe subject property without confirmation cf the Impugned Order dated 18.08.2022. Pass such further/other relies in favour ofthe Appellant which Vhs Learned Tibunal may deem f and proper in fate and Groumstances ofthe exe; (RAJESH Kumar GUPTA) Liquidator, M/s UV Exports Private Limited ‘THROUGH IMANAN GUPTA QT ates siént No -D/4725/2022 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT 0-22, LGF, JANGPURA EXTERSION MEW DELBT 130014, Ph. Ho. #91 9872946830 ‘Email asvang9Qemail.com Place: Hew Dethi Dated: 30.09.2022BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PREVENTION OF MONEY- LAUNDERING ACT, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI i APPEAL NO. USS OF 2022 wn oc No.15820F 2021 iN PRO No. 05/2021 DATED 16 11,2021 WN etRy/o2/D2c8/2013 TER jes Kumar Gupta Liquidator, Mf UV xports Private Limited £-43 Dilshad Colony, Delhi 1 10095 -Appellant Verma Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Goverment of Inia, Delhi Zone 1, MTL Building, ‘204 Figo JLN Marg, New Deli-110002 Respondent ArrDDAVIT |, Rest Kumar Gupta [Liquidator of M/s UV sports Private Limited, aged 58 years, So Late Shri Satish Kumar Gupta R/o'F 32 Dilahad Colony Delht 110085 do hereey solemnly arm and deelare te ander: 1. That Tom the Liquidator jn the Appellant Company and as such 1 sa fully conversant withthe facts and eircumutancea ofthe Appeal fled it the captioned Appeal and hence, sm conpeteat vo swear this Aidan 2. That I have read and understood the costents of the accompanying, Appes! which fax been dated under my metructions sod | ave read the same, The facts stated therein are true ane correct tothe best of my knowledge and legal submissions made therin ae based on legal edie, Which I believe tne tre and correct 4. The contents ofthe accompanying Appeal ewe not being repeated Rerein {or the sake of brevity and dhe same tay be read past and parcel of this Affidait as if he same have been spectcaly been incorporated and ‘sworn by me herein That the annetures ate trie cops of thei spective originals iL i vat POS eKnee Ver at ew Delhi on the 20% day of Septernter 2022, that the averments sagen the hun afte ae rc an coe tn my wiedge and in Sind nothing materia! hos born concealed teres, al ATTESTED ene Bron 30 SEP 202240) 7582/2024 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) Dneniewes IC ee ota & Or vont 18) ‘BEFORE THE ADIUDICATING AUTHORITY (ONDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2009), EW DELHI BEFORE |. VINODANAND JHA, CHAIRMAN ‘onucINAL coMmLANNT (0c) 1562/2021 In PAO No. 05/2021 DATED 35.11.2028 Bate: 18.08.2022 Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Government of Indie, Dalhi Zone Central Region, MTNL Building 1 and Foo, J UN Marg, Now Do Complsinant Sh Raesh kumar Gui Liquidator, M/s W Exports Pilate Lites, F-43, Dilshad CulunysDeini-T10095, Defendant 1 2. Sh. Vined Sirohi, 1 2302, {leo County, Seetor423, Noida - 20330 Defendant 2 3. Mrs, Usha Sirah, A 2202, Cleo County, Sector-121, Noida- 201308, Defendant 3 4. VikaranAwasty, 6, Green street, Mayfair, London, WaKRW, United Kingdom, Email: awastyveeru@icloud.com ig, “Defendant 4 age otat0{0-1582/2021 Sh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) 5. Rika Avasty, 6, Green Street, Mayfair, {ondon, WIKERW, United Kingdom, 6 The offal Uquidator (i#/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Lt), {ok Nayak Bhawan, 8th floor, an Market, New Defi-110003 7. HOFCBank, HOFC House, H 165-266, Backbay Reclamation, (Churchgate, Mumbai - 400.020 8 otek Mahindra Gank27 BKC, C27, Block, Bandra Kurla Compe, Sandra (), Mumbal 400051, ‘Maharashtr, india 9. Indian Bank, P8 No: 5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Sala, Rovepettah, Chennai 600024, ‘Tami-todu, India 20. IClct Bank cic Bank Near Chak Gre ta Paine, Vaossra 20007, curd Anpearance Counsel for Complainant Counsel for Defendant No. 1 Counsel for Defendant No. 3 Counsel for Defendant No. 4&5 Counsel for Defendnt No. 7 Counsel for Defendant No. 8 Counsel for Defendant No. 9 Counsel for Defendant No, 10 Defendants Defendant 6 Parekh Mare, Defendant 7 Defendant 8 -~Defendont 9 Defendant 10 Mr. Rabin Majumder, Ld, Advocate ‘Me. Karun Bansal, €0 ‘Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Ld. Advocate Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms, Mahima ‘Ahuja, Ud. Advocates Mr. Tushar Roy, Ld, Advocate #Ms, Deepti Bhardwaj, Ld. Advocate Mr. Yogesh kumar, Ld, Advocate ‘Ms, Seema Gupta, Ld. Advocate Mr, Deepak Kaushik Ld Advocate Page 20t330ce {0c-3582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) & Per Sh, Vinodanand Jha, Shaleman 1. PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER ‘The Provisional Attachment order (hereinafter alo referred to a5 PAO No. 95/2021 DATED 15.11.2021 came to be passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, File No. ECIR/02/0ZCR/2019. The sad PAO isin respect of immovable properties a detalled below Pursuant thereto riginl Complaint (OC) u/s (5) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (tua) came tobe filed on 14.12.2021 before this Authority numbered 2s OC. 1582/2023. The said PAO and the OC are the subject pater ofthe present adjusteatin, ST.OF MOVABLE AND MOVABLE snore ONAL ATAcuED [Bata of the [etonasee ST Rropariy propery tee | Vee Baan k- i ft lee fins) i TN, 55, 5 oa i Wah Foods su 1S 087 DEF South cov. brtceas Poe | aks et | soot? sd peceeon (re lee z | Naf'SaBi8™ floor, | 7s Bush Foods | 13240087 | 12.03 2010 | DUPSoleh cour, | Overseas Pe fon | Stet new dete [ta teuance of | soi? osesion L ) _ letter) We No-[ Uv fapors RA Sagas a1 | sssosz2i38 | i | maintained in | indian Bonk, saxty ch Branch, Karol Lo detttew oem | Lo Paes efa39€ PSCISEI2N2A Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) ® |< TATA teaig [OV ons Be [28355 Toon Registration No | i | DuLx0279 | ~ [sem Gaz | WV Expons Bt |a7iase fara] bearing ed | Registration No Se TATA “Nexon | UV Exports Bvt. | 455000 bearing tg, Registration No. Suazca2s79_ _ _—__| Renault Duster] WV Sport Pt [as Tana Dearing a Regstraon No | neaoseese2 z BMW bearing [UV Restrain No. |itd.pee ETE TE Gs 2 souepute Gfitites OW, New Deh eegtered FR No 136 dated 03.12.2014 for commision of offences punishable unde sections 42, 20 and 1209 of Reagan win foods Overseas Prt Ld, Vitaranavasy tha Away, Nant eon aoe Sh, od Rahul Rana. ter vestgtonEOW, New Di es cones sheet on 08.08.2016 before the Competent outage te osc ne accused forthe offences punishable under 409420,468,474,778 @ tek 1: Since sectons 620, 471 and 1208 of PC were pat of steed ott Under PMLA, the mater wat. taken up for invetinnes ne cyoyozce/201s dated 26022018, PagesctssoOC 4582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors} & 3. ENFORCEMENT CASE INFORMATION ReponT. Sine sections 42,471 and 1208 of I were part of schduled offence under PMLA, the matter as taken up for investigation and Een/on/osnhyoens dated 26 02 2019 was recorded accordingly in the ofce of Deli zone earn t eon, Drectorate of Enforcement, New Delhi gas VitaanAwery oe Stroh, M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pit Ud. and its erator, KPMG nada non tc and others unknown personsentties for commission of often us oy MLA, 2002 punishable u/s 4 of PMLA, 2002 (as amend), 4 _ INVESTIGATION UNDER PMLA (as submited by he Compleat nn RCUMSTANGES OF THE cE LEADING 2AB Fue OF Ts compar: RY 1. That the EOW, New Deli reptered Mil! 136 dated 03.12.2018 (annexes herewith as Annexure - 1) fo cbmmtson of offences punshebis carci 0 1208 oe ese a Lid, Viraranawasty, Rika Auasy'f Arora, Vinod Shot, and Reker Faisurana. After InvesigationafOWWW/Hew Delhi fled charge sheet ne 98.08.2016 (annexed herewifpslpnhexure- I) before the Competent Court sasinst the folowing fergedused for the offences punishable under 409 206sa7s.77 geo (i) Sak Chanraepadt fo Sh ¢Janardnan (i) Vinod Stohs/ Sh, Ramesh Singh Son (™)Viarandwaty, S/o, Vay Avasty (1) ita Awasty, W/o VitronAwaty (1) is bush Foods Overseas PL trough its rectors VitrenAwasy, Rika Avast and Vinod sro 2. Supplementary chargesheets were aso fled by the Economic Offences Wing on 29.06.2017 and in tly 2018 in this case. (ennexed herewith e¢ ‘Annexure IV and Annexure -V respectively) Page sornt91OC1882/2021 Sh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors) Qs 3. Sine sections 420, 471 and 1208 of PC were part of scheduled offence under PMLA, the matter was taken up for investigation and fcIR/02/02CR/2039 dated 26.02.2019 (annexed herewith s Annexure - Vi) was recorded sccordingly in the office of Delhi Zone Central Reson Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi against VekaranAwasty, Vinod Stok, [M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt id. and is directors, KPMG india Pa ta, ana “thers unknown persont/entities for commision of offence u/s 3 of Pia 2002 punishable w/s 4 of PMLA, 2002 (as amended), {Investigation by EOW 1. Investigation of Economie Offences Wing, New Delhi in FIR No. 136 dted 03.12.2014 was insted on the basis of a Ropplant of Hssed Naterands BY. having ts regtered ffce a pho! Boulevard 231, ‘31884 Amsterdam, Netharlands against M/s Bushs Oversees Poa and ts Directors. % 2. lt was alleged that M/s Hassed.Metheninds BV was induced by Me. Vittaranawasty and Mrs. Rika Avast Bart with its funde amounting Uss 220 lion (approx Rs. 789. conta) by mistepresanting the Teel ct Hocisnventory.On the basi sph misepresentatons, Veranameay ate Atha awasty ako need uZdlasndNetheands 8 V to provide comornc suarantee for the ousthdn amount of Rs 718 crores ocr econ, availed from conspriunf of banks, Cred facies were avaled by M/s Bach Foods Overseas onthe bss of om enon sooo 3. Mirkaranawasty and Rha Awasty were the original shareholders and Glkectors of the compan, Since incorporation of the company, Viraranawasty ‘as the Monaging Director of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd and wee i charge ofthe affairs ofthe company and was responsible forthe conduct of ite business along with the other members of the Boatd of Directors of the company, 4. Virkaran Awasty, Rita Awasty and Vinod Sicohi, In a pre-planned ‘manner, created bogus stocks by inflating the Inventory and at the same time fabricated the financial statement of the company. The bulk transactions of ‘ales and purchases were generated in order-that M/s. Bush Foods could‘{OC1S52/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kurnar Gupta & Ors.) ‘Scrd inerese turnover, profit margins and ational stock by generating potonatty equal vlue of sles and pucheses in a year. An aie! pros and arta increase Inthe book value of eventory was recorded inthe book OF Mis Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd by recording these bulk sles within the accounting ledger ofthe company as domestic sales. These bulk transactions were sported by actual cesh movements through bank accounts and by the use of cheques 5.__Tese bogus transaction were cated out to ave credit facts fom {he consortium of bons and to crete inventory The bopu trancaton vee done vith some ponietrsti ms in Naya Baar, Deh who worked on he basi of commision of 2% por quit. These partes only teued recent sale and purchase and charged 2% per quintal as geptHSion but in actual were ot crying out any busines of re. TheteMipanies wore wn companies and were used only forthe purpos Yolation of money andthe mount received n the bark account of thd cofnponies was returned tothe ‘rheology i nese &. 201 StanardChaeyed Rvke Ext acquied 29% shareholding in l/s bah Foods Ovrseus re ttdhtrough Standard Chartered Prone (Maus) ean tnd are rate Eoaty Moonah ne 7. to and aroundiSetember 2012, KPMG lndia Private td, on behalf of Mis Bush Foods Qyetseas Pt Lid. and VrkaranAwasty, approached Hassod Food Company, the parent ‘company of the Hassad Netherlands 8 V, inviting it to invest ito the company 28a satge partner. KPMG indo Pv Lad. aa repored an infomation Memorandum and Databook annexed os Avrora = Ml eoncening the alles of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pv iad ne September anda copy ofthe same was provided to Hessad Food Comeery, Vavious presentations were made to Hasta Food Company around the cea November 2013 in which Standard Chartered Privote Egy nominee deers Me. Rahul Rasrane ad Mr, Nam Arora were also present The deals the Standard Chartered Privat Equity woud sell ts ene shareholding (2) a5 M/s Hasnd Netherlands 8.V, and ex the company, Page 7otst0Om £#00-1882/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) Ka 5 _ls Hassad Netherlands B V agreed to it and acquired 69.59 ofthe ‘hare capital and Mr, VrkeranAwasty and Mes. ita Awasty held 30586of he "sued share capital of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ld Ss oihs, Bot the, deal, Us. Hassad Netherland BV transferred Re 653.20,75,315/- and provided a ded of guarantee dated 16.05.2013, tn avon of the Consortom of banks and guaranteed the repayment of oustanding amounts due under certain credit faites avalled by M/s Bush Foods Overs >t td from the consortium bank othe extent of 70% ofthe caim amount 10. The details of Rs. 653,20,75,318/-is a under. Owe he ene py at s [eeitctvan Jno ot fear RAS” ~ansat We | ne No. Shares 0 Ton us sy 1. | virkaranaasty 459.50,239 | 249,38,80256 2 itika Awasty ob7,680 17,87,529 |9,70,15,455 ee eer 4. [SCPE Mi ” 14234593 | 4,42,67,156 |240,25,33,491 [Secon stres| asa Jazaanao0" fosaeaio from Brore oar jaamaer | saoasa7ea esoan ome L (1 As per RB Conversion Rote s on 26.03.2013 - 1 USS» Rs, 54.2735)MOCIS2/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors) 11. t's seen from the chargesheet of OW, that reports of the auditors {eeaed by Ms Hassd Netherlands 8. andthe statements of theca of ifs Bush Foods Overseas Pt. td, confirmed thatthe socks wens earn and the nancial statements were fabricated. Further, bulk eke) ae noe Purchases were generated trough some popritersip fms in Nee enn Dal to create fake stock and to aval eet acy fem the conse den bani. Statements of the proprietors of these fem recorded by roan Contd the sme M/s Bush Foods Overieas Pt Lt hed sasted the to employees to prepare the bls of alas and purchases even ah etl buses was cared out, Fr thi purpose, by ae purthased athe werdosin aya Bazar. ancaprch was prepare nthe paral eos stoseg Malia Nagor, New Deli and stpled with the ‘ole. purchasing Xaetpachi was reared a pa istrucion of Vga RB. Rochon ed Witoranuaty. Job work contac, ling cong agreement of ne sete found tobe forged, Signatures onthe G@abems Were fond te be fora nhs manne, stock fo the tuna gesimate Re 50-200 cores, found tobe togue, {paca ened u/baite a judg company, after the ait fo a 300% physical vrtcaton, When Delotte started the audit: dubai 12 tad terns ov af 162013, vray and Voda mado ita dfcut task fohad/s Deloitte, so that proper veiieaion could not be fora an wit opt wi mas ae tame een Relevant part of the report of Deloitte is reproduced below, cP ‘Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibilty i to express an opinion on these financial statements bosed on our audit in accordance with the Stondards on Auditing isued by the Institute of Chertered Accountants of Indi However, becouse of the moters described in the ‘Basis for Diselimer of pinion’ paragraph below, we were notable to obtain sufficlent appropriate ual evidence o provide o bast fran aud opinion. Paper{0c 4582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupte & Ors) Boss iscloimer of Opinion 0) With regard toe material ventory as & March 3, 2013 comprising row (ee amounting to Rs. 76,562.58 lacs and paddy amounting to Re 23.216 46 lacs (0) stated in Note 4 (0), 2 Te Company id ot cary out phys veiiaton of is ow motra lovey oso Mach 31,2013 end reled yar en it of proce the yearend nor were updted veto cans eae sof tha eo seein yor end book bones the eons were wptited beanies Inch ater det) Conse query, we were unable tata te bot tees lye wr non per itof rceli oofe nd procedures clos te year en, eo % The company finally cari outa py 3 However tn respect of 5 torial ventory leter ton fig sock which could not be pied verified os indicated ebove), during the Plyskal verification extyie) the manogement exaressed he. Inabtty to saronge adequate retour for validating welght and contents of bags ner ‘eoaly aces e stocks © ae nsequenty, quantiles of such row moterol Inventory could not be accurtely determined die to improper stacking and nonsegregation thereof variety wie 5 _The weight of raw rice inventory bags for inventory valuation has been onsiered bythe compory ata stondord weight of 75 kg per bay As explained {0 us by the management, for the purposes of storage, most ofthe row rie {ventory boas (purchased largely i quanthy varying fom SOka/ bag to 6Stg/ hog) were repacked into 75 kg weight per bag. However, our text check ot the {ime of physico verification reveled thatthe weight of bags ciffered from the ‘andord weight claimed by the management in most of the cases, de to which the actual weight of the raw rice inventory cudnt be established, {ne(OEOSSAEORY Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors) &e itt, in the absence of variety wie imentoy records being ‘maintained bythe company and varety wise physica! verification thereof the Groroprateness of classiiction of such tventory varity wise dove on the ‘esl of the management judgment for valucton purposes coulé not be veidoted. (0) "Attention is also drawn to Note 40 () regarding yeor end raw material inventory of padtycogregating Rs. 23,216 lcs (71,194 MT) npostenson of third partes for which independent crularation of balance confirmation woe ‘not permitted bythe management forthe reasons stated inthe sold Nate, (Sine epdted book of eccouns pert te prod sutequnt to or end up othe dete of approval ofthese francchgetemert nec ne valet, we were unble to cary out subsegehprven woreanna Concave, the Impact of subsquem vere stxent couldnt beaseraned” Sh hy Tere the sid epore was daeflin Board of Minutes ofthe sth AGI of members of Bush Food OneGbPUE Ut 2.102019 & 9.102013 9 a » Nasi Chairman & Representative of Hassad] Mohammed tg AL | Netherland 8. Shareholder) 2" MeVifsibnawesty | Managing Director & Shareholder [fine hated} Abelrahman Rag 4 | hr Fadi Erseouni | Dkeetor pectnt 8 CrO pemeececaaeneae| | Company Secretary 7.” Wir Simon Henderson [Senior tegal Counsel, Hasiad” Food ‘Company. ASC as observer{[0<-1882/2021 Sh. Rajoch Kumar Gupta & Ors) B._ Inthe sid meeting the sue of at audit report and declines report was dscussed by Mr. Jaideep Bhargava highlighting. that “one of are warehouses Deloitte were taken to by Mr. Awasty to do the stock count {appears not to have been company assets Deloitte received a call rom the warehouse owner stating that none of the inventory In that warehoure belonged te Bush Foods. The actual GPS location andthe coordinates pen to Delite were also ferent. He further stated that Delete were not shen Permission to nor assisted to remove more than 1 or 2 layers of bags to sen ‘ow many bes were in each stack Deloitte could not verity number of bape” 24 Inthe survey report ofthe Or, Amin Controllers Put. i, the following was ‘ound mentioned - (annexed herewith as Annexure =) “Puanr suo eS There were four Silos found in the plant Compoynditpver only 1 silo could be ‘Opened and the other 3 were sealed. The st, Opened was found to be rote empty. “oy umriawammoue A) Mi Ink melas ofr SA oe we fd ob oxi wi cs ne Hg soe a ere 16 and 10 ft hb betel. A 0 ough and wave caine nee wer approx. 115 Uf bog! whch were trd fom walt ll eu oe ‘stack plan. Bags yitrendving approx. 60 kg packing, though this could not be The fats ofthe report" Delonte as well a Or. Amin Controllers Pu. tt twearing the stck( Bt Jodantory of paddytice were corroborated by the documentary evggie"ts well as statements ofthe employes of M/s usa Food Overseas Pvt"Yid, 435, | VekaranAwastyreceived Rs. 249,23,40,969/- from M/s assed Netherlands BV in lieu of share transfer and the same are proceeds of erime ‘and a substantial amount was transferred by VirkaranAwasty to the A/e No 052800712002 of his concern V & R Overseas, maintained at HSBC Bank Barakhamba Road, New Deli ® Vinod Siohi colluded and conspired with VirkaranAwesty to cheat Hes sad Netherlands BL. of substantial sums of money and wae well ‘ewardedby VrkaranAwasty for his comply in the offence. rae ter0Hocas#2/2021 Sh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) &) 2. Vilaronawasty, trough his frm M/s VER Oversst, rangfered Re. 8 Crore to M/s Usha Exports, © proprietorship concern of Usha Stroh, we of Vinod Sroh, against bogus purchase bl € is Usha Exports i 2 proprietorship concern of Ms. Usho Soi. M/s tishe Exports received Rs. 8 crores from M/s VAR Overseas during the poriad from 02.08.2013 to 20.04.2013 ‘nweitigation under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 1. _Minod Sirohi was director as well as CFO of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pat td, He was the one tho was managing oll th afar ofthe company along withirkaranawasty. Vinod Sirohi was pald Rs. 8 rores as ileal Bevery from he company of Vitaranwasty fs comity treporing the forged ecamats Tho amount asec inlet’ fil fl Ua pos 2. tod Sih along wth Vitaranawasty Sh ka Awasy manipulated the books of accounts of M/s Bush ‘oat Cosas Pvt. Ltd, to avail higher credit limits from financial institutions Gt IiBuced M/s Hassad Netherlands B finest in M/s Bush Food OvieehP by shown oho frocea fzrtonal earn vga owt pcs te we fudged and used wo gh als to 8, kash sed Sorc an jos slvburchase to be around in he hooks of aucune voter to nr the tower He dooney ‘manipulated andy tsied stock/inventories of Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 3. Vinod Sirohi was associated with M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt.Ltd, since 1998, 4 On examination of the bank statement of account no. 052-237880-006 in the name of virkaranawasty and Rtka Awasty maintained with HSBC Bank, "twas revealed that on 28.03.2013, INR 2,9,23 40,963.36 we received from (M/s Hassad Netherlands BV agunst the sale of shares of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Put td Pre 50110USRPAARL Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) 8) wr sett ofthese funds, fn 2s shown nthe tale blow were rnsered wn aount Ae, 052-800783-005 inthe name of M/s VER Overseas maintomea with HSBC Bank (annexed herewith as Annexure -) [S.No. [Date —Tamount Gn i) ] 30.68.2013 170,00,00,000 (02.04.2013 |2,00,00,000 | 00,00,000, 6 Lit ofthe funds rectablh M/s VER Overseas, funds were transfered te atcout no 0356213L20}684in the name of isthe Fone es ‘wim Onental Banko Coferce. (annexed herewith ae Annerare sa) { Pe aa aT] Boer SDR [2 06.04.2013 '2,00,00,000 Smee oy 000 B00 |i fsa —— zaomom9 —| ee Poe 16 F11010C-1582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.} Bo &. Mis Usha Exports isa proprietorship itm of Usha Siok, wife of Vinod Sitch, Vinod Sioh, in his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, stated that he looked after the day to day work of M/s Usha Exports and thatthe amount ot Bs. 8 crores was rocsived by MY/s Usha Exports against the sale of rice o the company M/s VBR Overseas. However, investigation has established thet the account of Ms Usha Exports was opened on 28.03.2013 which is just a few days before the funds started coming from M/s V & R Overseas, During investigation it was revealed that no actual business was carted out In the fem. Vinod Sirohi was paid this amount for his comply in preparing the {forged documents &. 14 ako paint to mention hte that pol of bank secant Statement of M/s Usha Exports ao reveals thatthe, ipa shown sale of sc fom 02042013 t0 20.04.2018 tthe tune offbgrres toe VaR Gere, wheres the paca sees 8 Op RY oe ee a vpto08102019 Risso ste engine ee ae at ‘by M/s Usha Exports to the tune of Rs.i@\Crbges, Thus, it is established that srr es en co tr aa the mone eed fo cope tarntunay the eo strengtered rom the fat hip the tune of NR 494 coves i ston a be purchased fom Mis alee rsae wach cabo one ck rn supper free ofs ueas rene et 10°" sam th peor upterofi/Ue Egons were xan by EOW viz. Ashok ilitnge-dnd Vijey Kumar who are the Proprietors of the firms Is Aa Ae ed nd Ms el am Vay Kans ees hereto Aare “Kon Ameuredtenccn) contest there waren aul bss Waneon wee le Epon twas shin but aconnatston ens Fat ne there avers ts nthe Naa Boro meron oot eee ot 2p qt These arte onvana eco ole nde ak ‘ctaty werent carne ot ony bets tee hse eee aa sham campus nd wae ued tr he puone statcael ey f.Onberg aad shut te wet ene fom VBR Oretans vad Stone atthe amours vere caved sso ee oe he fae open rete decmens mnt ein see, ‘that M/s V&R Overseas had entered into any sale/purchase with M/s Usha Pp ita‘106-1582/2021 Sh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) Emports. Vinoc Sirohi admitted that he was looking after day to day work of Mls VR Overseas He further stated tha though his wife Usha Stel wos oe Proprietor of Mis Usha Exports al the doy to dy aos of Mie Uo tapore were looked after by him. Hs wife & a housewife and she was mene 6 Fropsetor for name sake, Statement of Mis. Usha Skah! was recorded oe 06.05.2020 wherein, she stated tht Vinod Soh looked after the day to doy work of Mls Uta Exports She could not expan the purpose of recip ot funds from Mj VaR Overseas inthe account of Ms Usha Export Staterens of Vinod So an Usha Soh recorde us 50 of PMLA are annexed tern 2 Anmexure- Xl and Annenue- respecte, 1. Vind Soi farther stated that he used to dea wth Yogender Kumar who used to provide him bogus sae/purchae bill. Yoder Kumar ised to Sorted eer ge ae gr rd a Kel! rm Vy Kumar fom whom he has caidadehasing of ce, were not actualy doing ay rice business and provid Sons sale/purcace bls ‘without actual movement of gods and ward ehrbing commision on each Vinod Soh was shown statement ofbipth Misra and Bisdev Kashyap tod reiterate when they have stated that Vind Spy yalsed to gve them monty figures for bogus ils, Vinod Sch aiid Lhsme and stated that he usa to convey the igre of bots bl jdbegblined on the ection of VikaranAwesty, | Role of Vinod, Sihjtn oreparing nes sale/purchate bile is also estalshed by the titefpent of sh. Santosh Mishra, exemplayce of is Bush tots wre hi Seema of suo sb eat PMLA on 20062078 his statement, he, te ai, stated that he jedi Bush Foods Overseas Pt Lid. in the year 2009 as Accountant He was "eportg to Bev Kashyap, CA and Vinod Shi, CFO. Me admitted thts Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Le, according tothe requirement, Used tote of rocure bogus bis without sting or purchasing the iems mentioned in the Bog ils He was given charge fr procuring bogus bil fom the markt He as deced by Vinod Sirol and Bisdev Kashyap about the amount of equied “bata, They used to ge trets of around Rs 20 to 30 eroes pee month hich was the amount for which th bile were to be procured. M/t Bush Foods Oversas Put id sued fake sl bl, For this purpose fs ware taten on rent n Malye Nagar, th for 23 months ich company employes 40 Pestorey ‘rand Balab,BasudevSisual Vipin Chander, Manvendr Shukla ee vad to St and prepare fae/bogs bls in the name of fens. The bogen bee nace slvana commission found 10 pase per Re 100, J. © Oashyap was Dy. CFO In M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pt Ld He Chartered Accountant. statement of D Kashyap was recorded on rob sons He stated tat he was heading a team of 1520 sesnuntants st he meres of us us Foods Overseas vt. da 506506 Du South cou Soin en He ued to take cae of al data entry of ses/purchases bank oenctanns Se He wed ttn the blance sheet of he compary slong anes and Vined toh. He used to report to Viaranhvasty ane Vine sro \itaransty and Vinod Stroh wad to pve him monty gues of ls ong ad bul purchases. The i fr bl purchaser wa proce om one Yooener ef Ne ad Rj sion of ys apn Wise bles were ‘charging a certain percentage of brokerage on bot apron bills _Onbeing asked what Buk sales and ba ichase he stated that il for sles ad purchases were obsined ffl broker and Nays Boe broker on monthly basis to Increase thal of sale and purchase. This was done at the instruction of Vinod pfu Viekaranawasty, who used to give imonthiy figures of bulk sales/ppeqsbtn figures say Rs. 20 crores/50 crores, Trot bulk sls/purchases Bf. chalng ona monthly bat depandng oven the stock postion a the on dnd committed by Vikaranawasty and Vinod Sirohi to the banks. Gener hly bulk cales/purchases varied from Rs. a0 crores to ‘bout the procedure of preparing fake (bulk bls, he Stated that these fake sales/purchasebils were arranged on monthly bass at ‘the Instruction of VirkaranAwasty and Vinod Sirohi from Naya Bazar and ‘Narellaon monthly basis. After getting bil rom brokers, the bity and weight ‘measurement slip (kantaparchl) were prepared and attached with these bills at ‘the head office at 505-506, South Court, Saket. He further stated that one site office was ako taken at Maliya Nagar todo this work and they used to keep changing such offices after 2-3 months. The same work was also done at Bakali, Dell ofice, Santosh Mishra used to make the excel sheet of sales and Purchase bls Le, detail heving party name, quantity, amount and bill No. After setting these excel sheets, 24 accountants sitting at Head Office and Malvva Nagar offic, completed the set of bls after attaching kantaparchi and truck 4. a Pages of 110ed f0C582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors] ») ty Tea aap ity wr to arpa perth xa ane ets gen by not an ty Sa a een St bare ots tlre tthe sone aan ea a and Snounou a eee Se Iurtocome boca hi ayant sooner a ae sls od prcase sre rege se ee eas the amour es ig tc ots bee eh Sh tn or tae wonton, er em ta i tha por an cr ne a ees ea ssf army an od Seo ee ee onmon pate on puch and 29 pean Te ees rae 30 were brngeyYopetr arr teense im_ Statement of vopender fury,» oro gee Wi oes aa Men, os cae on isan nee ae ea a of tis sept rang wih sin rating EPL and he conn that he used to arange bogus sle/puchas lor ts Bush ocd ne oe ta Ns VR Ocnee epee spocioe Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. tll 2011-42 bubed to ‘get fake bills from the firms in Harder sonetins fonts ce me omission on providing fake Bush Foods Overseas Pvt Ln, ne etn Dour lefty che mace actors a fd Santosh Mishra (Se it of Yoomtor tomar eden noe ae are smnened here atoense- oy mr Samer US Scena o eas ered 5 of aa thro he sated et ens ands Can PMA tom te yr 308 fo 201 fe tr Ped ee Sron a tansy seg hn sae ns OE ood bom sprue bors Rees a ane Toots reas PU need ey aes Renee tn fam Wir toma io pod em ps beaker nr tame of Sen redo 01 PA oe ee eee o."Sonet Aranda, exes oY uh Fond nn Prey ted at Ved Stoerd Deaton ea oan SSrot Mia nd co he acne Se pe a : 3 Page 2001048) (0c1582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors} Xs) frtties of fae sle/purchase bil in ERP system, These bogus bite were senerated at diferent ented locations other than the main afi of bees Foods Overseas Pt Ltd (statement of Anand Balabh recorded u/s $0 of Pach sre annexed herewith as Annexure XV) P. Directorate of Enforcement has fled Prosecution Complint dated 12.11.2020 (annexed herewith a5 Anmenure - XV) in the presen case tet ommission of offences under Sections 3 and 70, punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Honble Special our (PMLA, District and Sessions Cour, Saket, New Delhi nthe Posecaan Complaint, Si Chandrassthar, VikaranAwasy, Rta Awasty and M/s. Sua Fos Overseas Private Umited have Been arained as acre of he offence Of meney Inder The Hobe Spec Cour (PMLA ew Deli bs ten ceric theconplton anata 4 ine prevent ese, Povo! Atachmene BH No. 05/2019 dated 17.06 2019 (annexed herewith as Annexure SQV Was isued whereln the Properties of Si Chandraselher, Vikarangvagy Sd ita Anasy Imola money laundering to the extent off. 7.16,72,746.50 was. provisionally SSO Sievers Atanebcer as cntnad ye tote Adjudeatng Autry vide ts ply Ate 14122018 (anmonednerewth og aneware. 0m cee ‘sites onerandla.nbivement of propery inthe offence of money inden (Sh! 1. _ M/s UV Exports Put, Ld. was incorporated on 12.02.2016. As per Vinod Sirohi, the directors ofthe company are Usha Sirol, Sikha Tyagi, Sidhi Gupta, Sikha Ty9gl is @ Company Secretary and professional director. Siddhi Gupte ts 2ls0 a professional non-executive director. The day to day affairs of the company i looked after by Vinod Sirti. The shareholders of M/s UV Exports Pt. Ld, are Usha Siohi (74%) and Mrs. Mansi Sharma (26%) 2. From the preceding paras ts seen that Rs & crores were recelved inthe bbank account of M/s Usha Exports and the same have been shown to be ‘received against sale of rice to M/s VBR Overseas, however, from the Preceding paras it is clear that no sale/ purchase of rice has taken place Further, Its also sean that the parties frpauhich Usha Exports has shown Pe mot0€ 1OC-1882/2021 Sh, Rajesh Kumar Gupte & Ors.) QU tht hasbeen purchased ave ate that niet as ben sly ham Mis Ut por nd it vas jt he sta were ppm oe Inte bark out wou be compenated ih he coh ater eae Las ‘Maruti Gaz | HRIGz0332 ATT asa TaTAtiexon | OuRCaRETS ~~ a59;000 Renault Duster | HRIOAESSED —— aw DLievaase{10¢-1582/2021 Sh Rajesh Kumar Gupte & Ors ‘The above said vehicles are considered for attachment under the provisions of “value theroot” as per section 2(1(u) of PMLA, The value of the vehicles are ‘Realzable value’ as per the letter dated 03.21.2020 of Sh, Rajesh Kemer Gupta, Reason to believe (On the basis offctual and legal poston as explained above, Deputy Director had reasons to believe tht: 1. Vinod sirohi, Vikaranawasty and fitka Awasty by way of criminal ‘acti elated to scheduled offences have acquired huge ums of money and bove laundered the same, These ore noting but Wticeeds of time categorcay fling under the defition o roca rime at sen under soetion 22) read with 2(2(v) ofthe PMLA, 2099. 2, M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. LidSplaltd an active fale through Vitaranswasty,Ritka Awvesty and Vii pl by fablating the bose ot ‘accounts of M/s Bush Foods Ovipstgh fla Ltd since 2011. Since 2010-13, bons anscins were bengal ut nthe company to nal te ca crea tty fom te conse bf banks andthe books were being ite 3. Vinod Sirohi reeds Of Grime! to the tune of Rs. 8 crores in his wt's tm M/s, Uebds pipers fom VieronAwenytebugh he ster concern M/s VaR ages. 4. The acquishjor| of proceeds of crime and its integration in mainstream economy by way of placement and thereby projection & aim as untlned oper has led to commision of offence of money aunderingdfioed Us 3 unishable U/s 4 of PMLA, 2002 5. 14s posse that tral of offences both under the PMA as aso of Schechied offences, may tke considerable time and f, power of prostona attachment is not execs hore, when there are demands of ecuratarces dnd existence of mater facts, could result in defeating the very purpose fer which PMLA hasbeen enacted. properties, 2¢ per Table Para 2) which are being tached, change hands, it cul lead to creation of onafige hd party intrest which may mak it elifesk forthe uthoriesto etree the same ate iter stage ‘G_—_(96-1582/2021 Sh Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) > & Thewfoe, i suid propre desuited at above, are not atthe brovonay under section Se Prevention of Money Lunda Ae os the si properties may bealente,tansered or csed resin thereby lel to frustrate the proceed resting to confers es bropet vole in money bundedng unde PMLA 20, No, tert onthe hs f mail and events rug ble Ie an having the reason to Blevetat sch oes of oe inven mane hander ae ly tte weed edeat ey memer which may rest im tnstag sy pene ee ae Conscaton of ch proces fn, ay rer nna aes ofthe properties (Immovable and movable mentioned Way in Table A), to the extent of Rs. 2,99,09,286 being proceeds of feline: as defined under ‘Section 2(2}{u) of PMLA, 2002 for a period of 384'%ahe"and further order that the ame sal ot bettered, pong Md who Shee donk ‘hn ay manos whorl uoedpapeatcay parca es bby the undersigned. ch why as Na Table & [= oars Proper, ~Valunion | |N [ pore Value/Balane | dte/Balane | ine) _ [¥ Ne 308, ioe, BUF) wis an Foods [334 iso8y —[aaaSoTe South Court, Saket, | Overseas Pte (son | |pew ben siona7 ] ‘ssuance of possession | Let "| |2 [No 506$™for, BUF [Bash Foods] Taz aapaT Teepe South Court, verses Pvt. tt son | |Site "te oes Monae soi fe posession L ——l_____ fay letter)€ {0c-1582/2021 Sh Rajesh Kumar Gupt (a5) QS) [> [We Wo, ween ov 198885 aaa | malian in nn | | jaan SAM Det | | ranch, xarot_ Bagh, | [__|New Dethi __ | TATA UT eating |W Bipons Ba] SRE PR Rogerson no. | buswoa7e [5] wari ca bearing fo Spare Pare | |Reitration no. |i unaozoss2 TATA Nexon Feeg |W Baio Tae fegltraton No. |i | Ta | bearing Region No noaao22 jew bearing ‘17.11.2020 Reghtaton No. urcwisse [= ‘Relevant cova, 2002 are reproduced below: Section 2 (2) of the a under: Section 21ltu) “Proceeds of crime” meons any property derived or obtoined irecty or indirectly, by any person as a result of eriminal activity relating to schedule offence or the value f any such property [or where such property is {ken or heid outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within country Section 2121 (v) of the PMLA provides as under! £ ‘ Pagoi {oc-1882/2024 Sh sje Kumar Gupta & Ors} © Section 210 - “property” means any property or assets of every description Whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tongible or ‘tangible ond includes dees and instruments evidencing tite to, or interest in such property or assets, wherever locted: ‘Exalonation For the removol of doubts, it ks hereby clarfied thot the term “property” includes property of ony kind used tn the commission ofan offence under his Actor any ofthe scheduled offences; ‘Section 2(4v] of PMLA provides as under :- Section 2 “Schedule offence” meons~ i) the offences specified under Part ‘A of the Schedule oF (i) the offences specified under Part 8 of the Schedule if {he foto! vole inmoledin such offences [one cove utes or more; oil) the offence specified under Part Cof the Schedule. "98 Salon ofthe PMLA aries co Section 3"Offence of money biydbring ~ Whosoever directly or indirectly ettenpt to ing or knits nowngh ls @ payor eeee Involved in any process aktvty connected with the [proceeds of erire Including its concealinent, "possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming! it as WitNinted property shell be guity of offence of money Jaundering.”. Ml ‘Section 4"Punishment for money laundering” - Whoever commits the offence of ‘money laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for aterm which shall aot be less than three years but which may extend to seven yeors ‘nd shal also be lable to fne. Provided thot where the proceeds of erime involved in moneyloundering ‘relates to any offence spectied under parsgraph 2af Port A of the Schedule, ‘the provisions ofthis section shall have eect of fr the words “which mayGe “tend to seven years", the words “which ‘Moy extend to ten years" had been Section. § “Attchment of property noted in money-loundering ~ (1) Where beteve (the reason fo such belief to be recorded in writing), onthe bst of ‘material in his possession, thet‘ "ransfered or deat with {2 ony manner which may ret in fragytung ry proceedings relating te cuff proce f ime el coger he may by order I uring, prove tach such propery foro pero not ‘cen oe hc andy Yrs om he daeed coe ek meray psn Povo etn i mr hb at ten non the shed ofa tt hasan fee an Seon 13 of gh of na eta Te eee ft «sen are o meen fo ee Side foo Nope oat fag ae a feo cs yb oes a ee Ie inert nepontegon ee ee PROVIDED FURTHER that, notwithstanding anything contained in [it provio any property of any person may be attached under this Section ifthe Director oF any other aficer not below the rank of Deputy Director, authorized by him ‘or the purposes ofthis section has reason to believe (the reasons for such believe to be recorded in wring), on the basis of material in is possesion, (het if such property involved in money oundering ot etached inmecately He ‘ Puerto{0C-1582/2021 Sh Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors} & 3) under this Chapter, the noreattachment of the Property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act 2 The Director, or eny other offer not below the rank of Deputy Director Stall immectorely after attachment under Sub Section (3), forward @ copy of the ander, along with the materiel in his possesion, referred to In thet rub section, tthe Adjuleating Authoty, in a seated envelope the manner os may ‘be prescribed and such Adjudeating Authorty shall keep such order ond ‘material for such period as may be prescribed, (6) Every order of attachment mode under Sub Section (1) shall cease to have fect afer the expiry of the period specified in that Sub Section oron the dote (fF an order made under Sub Section (2) of Section 8, whichguer i earlier; (4) Nothing in this sectian shatl prevent the person ihpgh , in the enjoyment Of the immovable propery tached une, RAs Eh pee triomen ne plnaton = For te purposes of ip ye con, “pean nerd in ‘relation to any immovable broperyatpnie ‘all persons claiming or entitled to ‘claim ony interest in the property, ¥, (5) Te Orector or ny othe per who provsnalyetaches any propery under Sub Section (3}inshalh within a petiod of thirty days fram such attachment, file a gémplalht stating the facts of such attachment before Adjudicating AuthSP” Section 22 of PMLA provides as under= resumption a to record or property in certan eases. Section 22 (2) Where ony records or property are or is found jn the possesston or ‘contro of any person inthe course ofa survey ora search [or where any record ©" property s produced by any person or has been resumed or seized from the ‘eustody or control of any person or as been frozen under this Actor under any ‘ther law forthe time being in force shall be peésumed that — Bronce{06-4582/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupts & Ors} « (0) such records or property belong or belongs to such person; Ail the contents of such records ore true; and (i) the signature and every other part of such records which purport tobe in the handwriting of any porteular person or which may reasonably be essumed {0 hove been signed by, or tobe in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in thot person's are in thot person's hondaitng, and in the cose of o ‘cord stomped executed or attested, that i war executed or otested by the ‘Person by whom it purports to hove been so stamped executed or attested, 2) “Where any records have been recehed from anyplace outside ind, duly ‘cuthenticated by such euthorty or person and in such manner as may be prescribed, inthe course of proceedings under tis Act, the Speclol Cour, the “Appelt Trbwrl rte Auaeting Authority she eee maybe, Sal. (0) presume tht the slate and every eter bl cu rear whch Purports to be in the handwriting of any fPepWrion or which the Court ay easy ose oe heen spe US ec ee ‘any particular person, is in that persons hundlriting and inthe ease of record exceed or ated thot k wos neu tesedy the person hone Premera te (0) edit the document in evident oewtstandng tht Wnt ly stomped, "Yeuch documents othentherhissben evidence: und ‘Section 23 “Presumption In interconnected tronsoctions ~ Where money: aundering involves two or tore inter-connected transactions and one or more ‘uch transactions is or are proved tobe volved i money-laundering, then for the purpose of adjudication or confiscation under Section 8 or for the trol of the money-laundering offence, it sholl unless otherwise proved to the setsfction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Coure. be presumed {hat the remaining transactions form part of such interconnected on 24 of Pa Page s00F110re [0C-3882/2022 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors) &) ection 24 “Burden of proof -In under this Ac cay proceeding relating to proceeds of crime {a} inthe case ofa person charged wit the offence of money-launder under ‘Section 3, the Authority or Court shal, unless the contrary ls proved, presume thot such proceeds of rime ar involved in money laundering, ond (©) Inthe case of anyother person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are Involved in money-laundering” ¥ [AND WMEREA, Section 7of PMLA proves as undp set 7 ae by empoes~ 6) be Seon cago como oy of he oases ge ES os cre mat taro esate ie en ‘controvention was committed, wasp # of, and was responsibie to the conor fre sn of ga ee ‘company, shall be deemed to pb" ‘of the contravention and shall be liable pcan cen ng ca Pitter oh a een sa er ys person Hable to pulehpent If he proves thot the contravention toot pace without his now or tat he exercised ll due egence to ert en controvertion 2) ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where o contravention of any ofthe provisions of this Act or of any rule, recon or ‘order made there under has been commited by a company and its proved ‘that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of or is attributoble to any neglect on the pat of any director, manager, secretary or ‘other officer of ony company, such dector, manager, secretary or other officer hall ako be deemed to be guity ofthe contravention and shall be lable to be roceeded and punished accordingly: Explanation 1- For the purposes ofthis section; +N Pass or110Bh 1OC-1582/2022 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) &) fi __amary” means anybody cofporcte and includes © fim or other _ssecoton of ndlvidvols; and i) “rector” in relation «fem, means 0 partner nthe fem. “Ailonation 2 For the removaof doubts, ts hereby cared tht company ofany ncvidva, ‘Section 71 of PMLA, 2002 provides as under Section 21: Act t have overding effect - The provisions of this Act shal have (fic notultstonang anything inconsistent therewith Stained many ater ‘aw forthe time being in force. ie 13, That, bated upon the facts whith "Sperged during the course of investigation there are reasons to, uiuglthat Sai Chandrasekhar receled sums to the tune of Rs 7 cron fight Vrkaranawasty for coluding ond conspiring with him to cheat }S3a4 Netherlands BV. of substantial sume of money. The amount offs. 2edaere ached out ofthe wareedsshenae in the form of property tibaind 1168, 12" a tain Rosd, Indiranagar, Bangalore: ‘and epost n bang accodhts of hs parents He hes ateady one Property bought ffbsh. R'V Gowda to his daughter, mother ond wife ns ‘create @ third part}ifterest and funds in the accounts of his Parents have been sed for personal expenses and some finds aes hingin the neon tng Parents The property in Mumbai es been bought inthe year 2013 the ar ich the ow ozs and his wes een mages coronnes sway and thus a semblance ofthe party inrest hasbeen creat 44. _Rtka Awasty who was orginal shareholder and whole time director of [M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pt. Lid. along-ith VrkaranAwasty and Vinod Siroht in a very cakeulated and designed manner manipulated the balance sheet of her company by fabricating the books of accounts, Pag sorte& 10c-3882/2021 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.) AS. _urther, summons were issued to ViraranAwasty and ita Awasty and its seen thet they are nether avallabe on their lst known address nor hove they responded to summons sent on ther emall awastyiru@gmeiLcom and ‘sawn hotmailcom respectively i seen from the records thot they hove tet the country and as per last known address are in London and appesr to have encashed their mutual funds from ther London addess. They hove ao ‘ld off thelr known properties, Since, the accused have absconded and are untraceable and assets appear to have transferred even while abroad othe address on mutual funds redemption statements Is that of London, the avalable balance inthe bank accounts were atached so as att alow ony ‘rher transfer ofthe same to avid frustrating he procpgs under PMLA 36, 1s posse that tl of ffrces polymer the PMLA as ako of Sched offences, may ate considerable and pone os ees attachment is not exercised here, whi ibe are demands of crcomatances and existence of jurisdictional fi \jfcould result in defeating the very Purpose for wich PMLA hay Sp ehaced propetr ah a ae stacked change hands, Vian to ceaton of borate ed cone interest which may makesjficul forthe authorities to retrieve the seman Its stage. tached imneity, the popertes vanes nancy Innderng mar cheered odes ee ‘may res in tittng any proceed properies” 5. BLING OF THE compualnt: ‘After passing PAO No, 05/2021 DATED 15.11.2021, the Deputy Director fled » complaint under provisions of sub-section 5 of section 5 of the PMLA before the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi stating. the facts of the Provisional attachment. The Adjudieating Authority pursuant to the perusal of the Provisional Attachment Order, Original Complaint and relied upon documents entertained the bell ofthe nature at required under section 83) of PMLA. The Acjudzatng Authority ordered on 05.01.2029 since of notice fem 8 felating to confiscation of such&S) foc 3882/2021 Sm, Rajesh Kumar Gupte & Ors) * Wo show cause to Defendants. Accordingly Notice to Show Cause dated 07.01.2022 was served on the Defendant, thereby interaiaeirecting them to fle reply on or before 20.02.2022, The hearing was taken up fiom time to ‘ime. The principles of natural justice are observed in the matter, . SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS & COMPLAINANT. REPLY OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 lat submited “MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS: That he present rept is bing ied by Shi Raesh Kumar Gupta,gldtort Mis U V Exports Prisatetiitedfor seking appropiate decsons te na compcinat and to represent the proceedings that 'y the provonal tachment OderNo, 0/2021 date 15.1202 oleprbe een te reves the Hobe Aut Athy ai he preening othe BRIEF FACTS 1M 4 _That the Hon'ble National QSripSiy Law Tibunal (NCLT }, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi vide ts ordeYshed 19.09.2019 war pleased ro ect a inant cope nantes pence Exports abate LimitediCerprate Debwog' by admitting an Application fe by woe Ambeagofoogs Priyite Lite, Operatonal Creditor of M/s WY bigs Frame Und esicion 9 ofthe kenya Santcode te Non’ble NCLT wablrther pleased to appoint the defendant Le: Rajesh Kumar Gupta asthe Interim Resolation Professonal. Copy of the sad odin e annexed as Annexure‘ 2. That pursuant to the appointment of the defendant, the defendant az er Section 13 & 25 made a puble announcement on 37.10.2019 cating upon the creditors of the M/s UV Exports Private Limited to submit their cme before the defendant on or before 31.10.2019, Copy ofthe sald publications ‘annexed as Annexure B’. Pageseorsi9f01592/2023 Sh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors) e 3 Thatsubsequently, the defendant constituted the committee of reditor{€OC) of Ms UY Exports Privat Limited and fed the report certifying the constitution of the committee of creditars of M/s UV Exports Prnate Lmitedbefoe the Hon'ble Nationa! Company Law Trbunel, New Dsl Bench, ‘New DelhiCopy of the said Coc Reports annexed as Annexure " 4. That COC in the Second meeting decided to initiate the Liqudation Proceedings of M/s UV Exports Private Limited. The CoC with a 78.42% voting Percentage passed the resolution tonite the Liuldation proceedings o M/s LV Exports, Subsequently, the COC in third CoC meeting passed the resolution {0 appoint the defendant as Liquidator-Copy of the Minutes of thd Cocis annexed as Annexure’, ' ? 5S. That fn view of the above, the defendant flute application under Section 33(2) of the insolvency and Bankrupteyi¢ide, 2016 before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Oeli\gerth, New Delhi The Hen’be NCLT vide ts order dated 13.03.2020 ot sow te pon aeponted the defendant as igislér of the M/s, UV fapors Prete te any ofthe gud rdr ts ane sme, 6. That sne then tifa hahaa caring the fname {Uquidator a per teleryisions ofthe Insolvency and Bankrupt Code, 2036, 7. _Thatthe defiant pubished Form Bk. Pubie Announcement or he ttenton ofthe stakeholders of M/5 UV Exports Pivateimied to submit ther clans with proof on oF before 10042020 Copy ofthe sald publeations annexed as Annexure. 8. That, afterwards the Stakeholders Commitee was constituted and ‘meeting subsequently meeting of Stakeholders was conducted. Copy ofthe Ust. ‘of Stakeholders Committee members is annexed as Annexure’, 8. That on 24.08.2020, the defendant recelved a summons from Mr. Pankaj ‘Kumar, Asistant Director (PRALA} on mall id efoigi@agmai.con(Thie mai taste© {oc-$582/2021 sh, Rajah Kumar Gupte & Ors) 'dpertans to liquidation process of My Eshal Foods Private Limited, a sister concern ofh/s UV Exports Fehate Limitedjto appear before him on 28.09.2020 4 10:30 AIN.Copy ofthe sald email & summon is annexed as Annexure‘ ‘The defendant received summons through speed post also. The defendant ‘appeared before him and answered all the queries, questions and other details ‘sked by him orally as well as in writings pertaining toMY/s UV Exports Private Limited and M/s Eshal Foods Private Uimited.During the said personal ‘deposition, Mr Pankaj Kumardirected the defendant to neither sell any asset nor use any bank account, of M/s UV ExportsPrivateLimitedand M/s Eshal Foods Private Limited and he alsoasked to provide detalls and information Pertaining to M/s UV Exports Private Limited and M/s Eshal Foods Private Lites, whic, the defendant provided subsequently. , set atmos ss teat Bertairing to M/s UV Exports Private Limited-gntnhs Eshal Foods Prvete Umit ought byt. Panta Kumar, SS ss 1. That on 2810200, Mr friar, Astane Orector (PMLA, throuh emai rected te cfegty under ‘ “Vehicles of Vinod Srl aero ‘and ther companies are the subject matter af imsstigtgn hg PMLA. You are requested tot fo eer mop ‘oklnucese ible sides” 12. That the defendant humbly requested several times to Mr. Panka} Kumar and MrPremMteena (new coffer in place of Mr. Pankaj Kumar) orally 25 well in writing to allow him to selloff the assets and defreeze the bank account of M/s UV Exports Private Limited and M/s Eshal Foods Private UUmited. But the defendant did not get any relief from them. tt is humbly submitted that the defendant comply with all he directions and instructions of the office of Enforcement Directorate, Delhi Zone. 33, That, on 21.12.2020, the defendant filed an application before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Bench I New Delhi under Seton 33(5)and under Section 60(5} of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016