Bengaluru court convicts retired Excise official, daughter in PMLA case

This document is a press release from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) Bengaluru Zonal Office announcing that the Special Court in Bengaluru convicted a retired Excise official and his daughter for money laundering under the PMLA, 2002, and ordered the confiscation of five properties. It matters to citizens as it details the legal consequences for possessing disproportionate assets and the court's authority to direct perjury proceedings against witnesses.

Who it concerns: M. Ramachandra (retired Excise Guard/In-charge Sub-Inspector), R. Yurekha (his daughter), the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the Special Court in Bengaluru (Court of the XLVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge), and the Central Government (as the recipient of confiscated assets).

What the ED says it did

• Conviction under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
• Accused No. 1 (M. Ramachandra) sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs.
• Accused No. 2 (R. Yurekha) sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs.
• Five immovable properties ordered for confiscation to the Central Government under Section 8(5) of the PMLA.
• Court directed the Registrar of the City Civil Court to register a perjury case under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against defence witness M. Jayaram for false testimony.
• The Court applied the Section 24 presumption of PMLA, noting the accused failed to rebut it.
• The Court relied on the predicate conviction in Spl.CC No. 55/2020 under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Also in the document

• The Court held that money laundering is a continuing offence, meaning acts predating the commencement of the PMLA did not defeat the charge if proceeds were still possessed or projected as untainted.
• The Court found that Accused No. 2 was liable as a knowing party who assisted in holding property bought with proceeds of crime in her name.
• The Court noted that in disproportionate asset cases, it is immaterial to quantify the specific proceeds of crime as only the disproportionate proceeds are considered the crime proceeds.
• The defence witness M. Jayaram admitted in cross-examination that his earlier statement denying a family relationship with Accused No. 1 was false.