Jammu And Kashmir Bank Limited vs Director, Financial Intelligence Unit-India

G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman

The matter is taken up through video conferencing. The appearance of the learned counsel is as above. None appeared for the respondent. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that copy of the appeal paper-book has been served on the respondent. It is informed by the Court

Master that link has been sent to Shri Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for his appearance in the matter as he used to appear for the respondent (FIU) in

other matters before this Tribunal. But none appeared.

MP-PMLA-8328/DLI/2021 (U.H.)

The appellant has filed application for urgent listing and hearing of the present appeal along with the application for stay on the operation of the

impugned order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Director, Financial Intelligence Unit-India. The prayer made in the application is considered and

allowed. The application for urgent hearing is disposed of accordingly.

FPA-PMLA-3887/DLI/2021

Fresh appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) against the order

dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Financial Intelligence Unit-India under PMLA, passed in Original No.13/DIR/FIU-IND/2020.

Upon hearing, issue notice. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondent.

MP-PMLA-8164/DLI/2021 (Stay)

Along with the appeal the appellant has also filed application seeking stay on the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 18.12.2020

imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- on the Appellant Bank on the allegation that the appellant has violated the Provision 12A under the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said Impugned Order dated 18.12.2020 was received by the appellant on 28.12.2020

and the directions given by the FIU in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002 imposing a total fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) on the appellant and the bank was directed to pay the said amount of fine

within 21 days of receipt of the Order by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of “Pay & Account Officer, Department of Revenue†failing

which provisions of section 69 of the Act shall apply. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on 01.02.2021.

It is inter-alia stated in the appeal and also submitted during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a Bank

under the provisions of the Building Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and that on 16.03.2019 upon the instructions and

guidelines of the Election Commission of India, the appellant bank was directed for monitoring Unusual/Suspicious Transactions during Election

process, and subsequent to that the appellant issued a circular bearing no.827 to all the business units/offices of the appellant stating that all the

business units shall forward the information of unusual/suspicious transactions during Election process and that on 27.03.2019, the Financial

Intelligence Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India issued an alert bearing no.Alert/05/2019/Election/DoMC/F.No.9-

15/2015/FIU-IND regarding Suspicious Transactions related to Election directing all banks under Section 12A of Prevention of Money Laundering

Act (PMLA) to file weekly reports to FIU-IND.

The appellant bank has filed three reports on dated 04.04.2019, 11.04.2019 and 21.05.2019 and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

due to non-availability of internet services the appellant could not get the alert detail and again on 11.09.2019 a letter to Principal Officer, Jammu and

Kashmir Bank Limited was sent from the Financial Intelligence Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, asking for an

explanation for not providing any information sought under section 12A of PMLA to the aforesaid alert and subsequent to that the appellant failed to

file the report before the Director, FIU due to non-availability of internet services, the appellant could not get the alert detail as they were not able to

access the notification and the transaction which the FIU has sought and also that the candidates details were not available on the site of Election

Commission and that there were no unusual and suspicious transactions in the accounts of candidates during election process.

On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for the stay of the impugned order as the appellant has not yet paid the penalty

amount.

Upon hearing, issue notice. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondent on the application. The learned counsel for the appellant has also

undertaken to intimate the respondent about the case status and of the next date of hearing.

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed in the file. The appellant is a bank dealing with

financial business. There appears to be a prima facie case for an order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 18.12.2020, till the next date

of hearing. Consequently the operation of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing. The respondent (FIU) is directed not to take any

coercive action, till the next date of hearing, in view of the impugned order, if the penalty amount has not yet been deposited.

The respondent (FIU) is allowed to file replies to the stay application as well as to the appeal within six weeks, with advance copies to the other side.

On receipt of the reply to the appeal, the appellant may file rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter, with advance copy to the other side.

List on 28th May, 2021, the date already fixed.