Money Laundering: Madras High Court Stays ED Proceedings Against TN Fisheries Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan

The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed, till the next date of hearing, the money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate against Minister of  Fisheries, Fishermen Welfare and Animal Husbandry for the State of Tamil Nadu, Anitha Radhakrishnan.

The interim relief was granted in a plea by the Minister seeking to quash the enforcement proceedings. The court also granted time to the Enforcement Directorate to file their counter.

The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira observed:

We further find that, on conjoint consideration of the facts noted in the impugned ECIR, the relevant sections of the Act sought to be invoked, amendments therein and further, making the schedule of the Act inclusive by the subsequent amendments, the respondent authorities owe answer, for which time is sought by them, which we have granted, therefore interim relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner is granted, till the next date of hearing. 

The allegation against the Minister was that while serving as an MLA of Tiruchendur Assembly Constituency and subsequently as a Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department during the period from 2002-2006, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.2,68,24,7555/- in his name, his wife's name, two brothers and three sons. The matter is pending in the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.

Based on the above, the Directorate of Enforcement filed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.

The petitioner Minister contended that the ECIR was filed on the premise that the offences were scheduled offences. He submitted that the Directorate had registered the ECIR for offences under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, the PMLA came into force only on 1st July 2005 and at that time also the Section 13 was not part of the scheduled offences under the Act. The petitioner submitted that the duration of the predicate offence was the Check period of 14.05.2001 to 31.03.2006. Hence, provisions of the Act were invoked against him retrospectively.

The petitioner contended that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act being a penal statute could not operate retrospectively and even otherwise it would be violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

The matter now stands posted to 14th July 2022.

Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v. The Directorate of Enforcement and Another

Case No: W.P.No.16467 of 2022

Click here to read/download the order