BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI

FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

MAIN INDEX
S. No. Particulars Page
No.
1. Memo of Parties
2. Synopsis and List of Dates
3. Appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 on behalf of the
Appellant “Leaps and Bounds Private Limited”
against Impugned Order dated 06.01.2025
received on 07.01.2025 in Original Complaint
No. 2400/2024 in connection with ECIR No.
KLZO-II/19/2022 along with Supporting
Affidavit.
4. Annexure A-1:
Copy of the Impugned Order dated 06.01.2025
received on 07.01.2025 in Original Complaint
No. 2400/2024 in connection with ECIR No.
KLZO-II/19/2022
5. Application seeking stay of the Impugned
Order dated 06.01.2025 received on
07.01.2025 in Original Complaint No.
2400/2024 in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-
II/19/2022 with Supporting Affidavit
6. Application seeking urgent listing of the
 present Appeal with Supporting Affidavit
7. Application seeking exemption from filing the
original certified copy of the Impugned Order
with Supporting Affidavit
8. Application seeking condonation of delay in
filing the Appeal with Supporting Affidavit
9. Vakalatnama and Board Resolution
10. Proof of Payment
11. Annexure A-2:
12. Annexure A-3:
13. Annexure A-4:
14. Annexure A-5:
15. Annexure A-6:
16. Annexure A-7:

APPELLANT
THROUGH

VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com

Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM OF PARTIES
1. M/s Leaps and Bounds Private Limited
Represented by its Directors
P-733, Block-P, New Alipore,
P.O. & P.S: New Alipore,
Kolkata – 700053
Email: leapsandbounds2012@yahoo.com

…Appellant
AND
1. Directorate of Enforcement
Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Kolkata Zone – II
Government of India, CGO Complex,
3rd MSO Building, DF Block, 6th Floor,
Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700064
Email: ddklzoii2-ed@gov.in

...Respondent
APPELLANT
THROUGH
 VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com

Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

SYNOPSIS

The present Appeal is being filed under Section 26 of the Prevention

of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against the Judgment and
Final Order (“Impugned Order”) dated 06.01.2025 received on
07.01.2025 by email passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under
the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi (“Adjudicating Authority”) in Original
Complaint No. 2400/2024 (“OC”) in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-
II/19/2022 (“ECIR”) pursuant to which, the Respondent passed a
Provisional Attachment Order 12/2024 dated 29.07.2024 (“PAO”) to
attach the Appellant’s bank balance of ₹2.70 Crore as “Direct PoC”
[Page 2 of the OC] that the Appellant has in fact obtained in the
usual course of its business and cannot be attributable to or have its
origin from or in relation to TET 2014.

Despite the bank account statement of ICICI Bank Account No.

031705002845 maintained by the Appellant being on record for the
period May 2012-July 2024 as RUD 12 (with transactions running
into several crores of debit and credit over the years), the
Respondent has attached a balance of Rs. 2.70 Crore, that is part of
the balance lying in the bank account on 29.07.2024, as Direct PoC.

Transactions during which the alleged PoC was generated relates to

the year 2015, between the dates 06.01.2025 to 07.10.2015,
whereas alleged payments were made to one Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra post February 2017 (which also was returned after three
months as per the Section 50 Statement of one Mr. Kuntal Ghosh Ex
D-3 before the Ld. AA). Clearly the aspect of purported generation
of PoC (and that too an amount of Rs. 70 Lakh, which also was
returned) by an employee of the Appellant relates to a period after
the transactions alleged by the Respondent ED in the present case
(i.e. in the year 2015).

The Impugned Order has not considered that the profits made
between 06.01.2015 and 07.10.2015 precede the period of the
alleged crime itself from 2016 totill 2021. The Appellant has not
been named in the FIR, ECIR, or any chargesheet related to the
predicate offence. The Appellant has only been arraigned as an
accused, namely as A-26 in the 5 th Supplementary Prosecution
Complaint filed by the Respondent on 30.11.2024. This belated
addition is merely placed after the Appellant filed its response to the
Show Cause Notice in relation to PAO No. 12/2024.

Further, there exists no money trail or documentary evidence

linking the Appellant’s legitimate business transactions to the
alleged scam. The Respondent has selectively relied on
uncorroborated Section 50 statements, which have no evidentiary
value at this stage.

The Impugned Order suffers from non-application of judicial

mind by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The Impugned Order merely
reproduces the Respondent’s allegations without independent
reasoning. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to record
separate “reasons to believe”, as required under Section 8 of the
PMLA, and has wrongfully shifted the burden of proof under Section
24 PMLA onto the Appellant, despite there being no prima facie
case. The Impugned Order also ignores the principle of separate
legal personality, as it wrongfully attributes the alleged acts of a
former employee, Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra, to the Appellant
company.

The Respondent has exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating

securities transactions instead of referring the matter to SEBI, the
appropriate regulatory body for stock market transactions.
Additionally, Respondent has already attached assets worth
₹151.8 crores from other parties, far exceeding the alleged
proceeds of crime of ₹22.25 crores, making the attachment
of ₹2.70 crores from the Appellant excessive and arbitrary.
There is no justification for treating the Appellant’s lawfully earned
funds as direct proceeds of crime, especially in the absence of any
connection to the scheduled offence.
Given the lack of evidence, violation of due process, and failure of
the Impugned Order to apply judicial reasoning, the Appellant prays
that this Hon’ble Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order dated
06.01.2025, quash the Provisional Attachment Order No. 12/2024
dated 29.07.2024, and direct the release of the Appellant’s attached
property.

LIST OF DATES

2012 The Appellant Company was incorporated as a private

company and was registered with Registrar of
Companies, Kolkata. The Appellant has, since
incorporation been in the business of manufacture,
production and distribution of packaged drinking
water, trading of goods as well as providing
consultancy services.
06.01.201 Time period wherein the alleged stock market
5– transactions were undertaken.
07.10.201
5
2016-2022 Admittedly, the period of the alleged scheduled
offence (Teachers Recruitment Scam) was post the
alleged stock market transactions undertaken by the
Appellant.

Clearly, the 2015 stock transactions predate the

2016-2022 TET scam, making it impossible for them
to be proceeds of crime.
08.06.202 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Soumen Nandy v.
2 State of West Bengal & Ors bearing W.P. No. 9979 of
2022 passed an order directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to investigate in the Teachers
Eligibility Test 2014 (“TET”) which was conducted to
select Primary Teachers for West Bengal Government
Schools. Allegedly, the TET was conducted in an
improper manner and there were alleged irregularities
in the appointment of teachers at primary schools.
09.06.202 On the direction of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
2 vide order dated 08.06.2022, an FIR bearing No.
RC0102022A0006 was lodged by the CBI, ACB,
Kolkata, under sections 7, 7A & 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and sections 120B, 420, 467,
468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
one Chandan Mondal @ Ranjan, unknown persons of
 the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and
Unknown others. The allegations as per the FIR are
that:
A. The Teachers Eligibility Test which was held on
11.10.2015 was conducted in an improper
manner and appointments have been given to
ineligible candidates using corrupt means.
B. The job of the Primary teachers has been
purchased in lieu of huge amounts of money.
C. In the primary selection process of TET, 2014
the question paper and its evaluation process
were done dubiously as wrong questions and/or
answer keys were designed in disguised manner
for depriving the eligible candidates.
D. A number of ineligible candidates got
appointment who did not answer the question
by answering the MCQ and submitted blank
exam paper only mentioning their personal
details got appointment as Assistant Teachers.
E. One Mr. Chandan Mondal was in a nexus with
the office bearers of the West Bengal Board of
Primary Education and other public servants
which facilitated the appointment of ineligible
candidates to the post of Assistant teachers in
consideration of money.
24.06.202 Further to FIR No. RC0102022A0006, and on the basis
2 of alleged the commission of scheduled offences the
Respondent registered a case under PMLA vide
ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2012 wherein it has been alleged
that the accused persons arbitrarily gave
appointments to ineligible candidates for the post of
Assistant teachers in consideration of a huge sums of
money and the TET was conducted in an improper
manner using corrupt means to give preference to
certain ineligible candidates.

NOTE: The Appellant’s name does not find any

mention in the ECIR or the underlying FIRs registered
for predicate offences.
19.09.202 The Respondent filed the Prosecution Complaint in
2 which eight (8) persons/entities were made an
accused in the instant matter.
07.12.202 The first supplementary prosecution complaint was
2 filed by the Respondent in which six (6) persons/
entities were arraigned as accused persons.
21.03.202 The Second supplementary prosecution complaint
3 was filed against Mr. Kuntal Ghosh in the instant
matter
08.05.202 The third supplementary prosecution complaint was
3 filed against seven (7) persons/ entities by the
Respondent in the instant ECIR.
28.07.202 The fourth supplementary Prosecution Complaint
3 arraigned three (3) persons/ entities as accused
persons in the instant matter. It is pertinent to note
that the Appellant had not been arraigned as an
accused in any of the Prosecution Complaints which
have been filed by the Respondent till the fourth
supplementary Prosecution Complaint.
19.12.202 A Provisional Attachment Order bearing PAO No. 08 of
3 2023 was passed by the Respondent provisionally
attaching eight (8) properties valuing INR 7,46,86,342
out of which seven (7) properties of the Appellant
amounting to INR 4,56,09,500 were attached.
17.01.202 The Respondent filed the Original Complaint bearing
4 O.C. No. 2143 of 2024 vide when the Respondent
prayed for the confirmation of the PAO No. 08 of
2023.
31.01.202 A Show Cause Notice appears to have been issued to
4 the Appellant under Section 8(1) of the PMLA in O.C.
No. 2143/2024.
14.03.202 The Appellant filed a detailed reply to the Show Cause
4 Notice dated 31.01.2024 showing the justifications of
the transactions and how there was no link
establishing the said properties to the predicate
offence.
28.05.202 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority erroneously allowed
4 the prayer of the Respondent and confirmed the PAO
NO. 08/2023 of properties amounting to INR
7,46,86,342 out of which INR 4,56,09,500 was of the
Appellant.
18.07.202 The Appellant preferred an appeal against the
4 confirmation of PAO NO. 08/2023 of properties
amounting to INR 7,46,86,342 before this Hon’ble
Tribunal.
29.07.202 A Provisional Attachment Order bearing PAO No. 12 of
4 2024 was passed by the Respondent provisionally
attaching the available balance (to the tune of
approx. Rs. 2.7 Crores) maintained by the Appellant
in its ICICI Bank Account (A/c no. 031705002845) as
direct proceeds of crime arising out of the alleged
 teachers’ recruitment scam.
26.08.202 The Respondent filed the Original Complaint bearing
4 O.C. No. 2400 of 2024 vide when the Respondent
prayed for the confirmation of the PAO No. 12 of
2023.
30.08.202 A Show Cause Notice (SCN) appears to have been
4 issued to the Appellant under Section 8(1) of the
PMLA in O.C. No. 2400/2024.
10.10.202 The Appellant filed a detailed reply to the Show Cause
4 Notice dated 30.08.2024 showing the justifications of
the transactions and how there was no link
establishing the said properties to the predicate
offence.
17.11.202 The Respondents were given time to file a rejoinder,
4 but failed to do so within time.
30.11.202 The fifth supplementary Prosecution Complaint
4 arraigned 29 persons/ entities as accused persons in
the instant matter. The Appellant was arraigned as an
accused in this Prosecution Complaint in a belated
manner.
04.12.202 The Respondent filed a rejoinder to the detailed reply
4 by the Appellant to the Show Cause Notice dated
30.08.2024.
16.12.202 The hearing before Ld. Adjudicating Authority took
4 place where the Appellant placed its submissions
before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority showing the
justifications of the transactions and how there was
no link establishing the available balance (to the tune
of approx. Rs. 2.7 Crores) maintained by the Appellant
in its ICICI Bank Account (A/c no. 031705002845) to
the predicate offence.
06.01.202 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority erroneously allowed
5 the prayer of the Respondent and confirmed the PAO
NO. 12/2024 of available balance (to the tune of
approx. Rs. 2.7 Crores) maintained by the Appellant in
its ICICI Bank Account (A/c no. 031705002845).
The Appellant has preferred the present appeal
against the Impugned Order confirming PAO NO.
12/2024 attaching bank account of the Appellant with
balance to the tune of INR 2.7 Crores before this
Hon’ble Tribunal.
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

To,
The Registrar,
Hon’ble Prevention of Money Laundering Appellate Tribunal,
4th Floor, B-Wing,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi – 110003

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY

LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
06.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY
(PMLA) IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 OF 2024 TITLED
“DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
VERSUS M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED”

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Appeal is being filed under Section 26 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against
the Judgment and Final Order (“Impugned Order”) dated
 06.01.2025 received on 07.01.2025 by email passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi
(“Adjudicating Authority”) in Original Complaint No.
2400/2024 (“OC”) in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022
(“ECIR”) pursuant to which, the Respondent passed a
Provisional Attachment Order 12/2024 dated 29.07.2024
(“PAO”) to attach the Appellant’s bank balance of ₹2.70 Crore
as “Direct PoC” [Page 2 of the OC] that the Appellant has in
fact obtained in the usual course of its business and cannot be
attributable to or have its origin from or in relation to TET 2014.
A true copy of the Impugned Order dated 06.01.2025 received
on 07.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is
annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.

2. The Appellant, M/s Leaps and Bounds, is a private limited

company incorporated in 2012, registered with the Registrar of
Companies, Kolkata. The company has, since its incorporation,
inter alia, been in the business of manufacture, production, and
distribution of packaged drinking water, trading of goods as well
as providing consultancy services. The Appellant is a company
in the business of manufacture and distribution of packaged
drinking water and has no nexus with the scheduled offences
concerning the Teachers Eligibility Test (“TET”), 2014.

3. The Respondent is the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Respondent filed Original Complaint No. 2400/2024 on
26.08.2024 in connection with the ECIR pursuant to which, the
Respondent passed a PAO dated 29.07.2024. The Respondent
attached the following movable property erroneously
categorising it as direct proceeds of crime:
 S. A/c Holder Bank Balance
No Account Provisionally
. attached
1. M/s Leaps and Bounds 03170500284 2.70 Crores
Pvt. Ltd. 5
ICICI Bank

[4.] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal
provided hereinafter are without prejudice to the rights of the
Appellant and are being placed only to indicate the
circumstances in which the present Appeal is being filed. No
statement contained in the narrative of facts is an admission of
the said fact, and is only being placed in order to indicate the
events that have culminated in the Impugned Order. The
following circumstances have led to the passing of the
Impugned Order:
[a.] Vide Order dated 08.06.2022 in WPA No. 9979 of 2022
titled “Soumen Nandy vs State of West Bengal & Ors.” the
Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta directed the Central Bureau
of Investigation to register an FIR and investigate into the
alleged irregularities in the selection process for assistant
teachers in primary schools [the ‘teachers recruitment
scam’]. Pertinently, to the best of the Appellant’s
knowledge, no allegation, specific or vague, was made
against the Appellant.
a.[b.] On 09.06.2022, the CBI, PS ACB, Kolkata registered in FIR
RC0102022A0006 to investigate the teacher recruitment
scam. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed by the CBI
which, notably, does not mention the Appellant, much less
 name the Appellant as accused in the case. A true copy of
the CBI FIR is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2.
b.[c.] On 24.06.2022, the Respondent registered ECIR bearing
No. ECIR/KLZOII/19/2022 to investigate offences under
PMLA, arising out of the predicate offence in the teacher
recruitment scam. However, the ECIR also does not name
the Appellant. A true copy of the ECIR is annexed herewith
as Annexure A-3.
c.[d.] The Respondent filed a Prosecution Complaint dated
19.09.2022, and five Supplementary Prosecution Complaints
dated 07.12.2022, 21.03.2023, 08.05.2023, 28.07.2023 and
30.11.2024. The Appellant has been belatedly added to the
fifth prosecution complaint filed by the ED.
d.[e.] On 19.12.2023, the Respondent through Deputy Director,
ED passed the PAO No. 08/2023 provisionally attaching eight
(8) properties valuing INR 7,46,86,342 out of which seven
(7) properties of the Appellant amounting to INR
4,56,09,500 were attached.
e.[f.] On 17.01.2024, the Respondent filed the Original
Complaint bearing O.C. No. 2143 of 2024 vide when the
Respondent prayed for the confirmation of the PAO No. 08 of
2023.
f.[g.] A Show Cause Notice on 31.01.2024 appears to have
been issued to the Appellant under Section 8(1) of the PMLA
in O.C. No. 2143/2024. The Appellant on 14.03.2024 filed a
detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2024
showing the justifications of the transactions and how there
was no link establishing the said properties to the predicate
offence. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 28.05.2024
allowed the prayer of the Respondent and confirmed the
PAO NO. 08/2023 of properties amounting to INR
 7,46,86,342 out of which INR 4,56,09,500 was of the
Appellant. The Appellant on 18.07.2024 preferred an appeal
against the confirmation of PAO NO. 08/2023 of properties
amounting to INR 7,46,86,342 before this Hon’ble Tribunal
which is pending adjudication.
g.[h.] Subsequently, vide PAO dated 29.07.2024, the
Respondent through Deputy Director, ED passed the PAO
No. 12/2024 whereby the movable properties specified
above were provisionally attached.
h.[i.] The Respondent filed OC 2400/2024 seeking confirmation
of the PAO No. 12/2024 and on 30.08.2024 the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority issued the Show Cause Notice to the
Appellant, under Section 8, PMLA directing the parties to
respond to the Show Cause Notice.
i.[j.] The allegations in a nutshell are paraphrased as under:
i. A perusal of the OC and the relied upon documents
(“RUDs”) would indicate that there is no allegation
qua the Appellant of committing any underlying
scheduled offence, or any act of money laundering.
Nor is there any evidence that they have been the
recipient of proceeds of crime used for the purchases
of the attached properties.
[ii.] As per the case of the Respondent/ED in a nutshell, the
proceedings originate from the teachers recruitment
scam wherein the accused persons named in the FIR
allegedly illegally manipulated the selection process to
appoint ineligible teachers in the various positions by
obtaining cash. The Respondent has thus alleged that
part of the illegal cash obtained through the
aforementioned reached the account of the Appellant
 through illicit means and has thus been attached as
“direct proceeds of crime” through the PAO.
ii.[iii.] The present PAO finds its origin in the FIR No.
RC0102022A0006 dated 09.06.2022 lodged by the CBI
pursuant to which the ECIR was initiated for
investigation under the PMLA. The subject PAO and OC
alleged that the Appellant had received a sum of Rs.
2.70 Crores (approx.) which was tainted at the behest
of Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra by allegedly engaging in
illiquid stock trading generating artificial profits.
iii.[iv.] As per the case of the Respondent, this amount of Rs.
2.7 Crores was the illegal proceeds of crime which
were being “laundered” and brought into the account
of the Appellant to hide their source and avoid
scrutiny. The Respondent has relied on the Bank
statement of the Appellant to conclude that this sum is
a fictitious profit which was paid in cash to the brokers
in different timelines either directly or indirectly to
generate artificial profits through share trading in
illiquid stocks. It is the case of the Respondent that Mr.
Sujay Krishna Bhadra was involved in corruption,
facilitating illegal job placements, and laundering the
proceeds through companies he controlled.
[v.] The Respondent has relied on statements of Mr. Tapas
Kumar Mondal under Section 50, PMLA to make the
case that a sum of Rs. 3.25 Crores were was collected
by Mr. Kuntal Ghosh from Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal and
that Mr. Sujay Kumar Bhadra was involved as an
intermediary in the alleged scam since 2018. The
Respondent has also relied on the statement of Mr.
Kuntal Ghosh under Section 50 wherein he states that
 he made a payment of Rs. 70 Lakhs to Mr. Sujay
Krishna Bhadra.
j.[k.] The Appellant filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice on
10.10.2024. A true copy of the reply filed by the Appellant is
annexed herewith as Annexure A-4.
k.[l.] The fifth supplementary Prosecution Complaint arraigned
29 persons/ entities as accused persons in the instant
matter. The Appellant was arraigned as an accused in this
Prosecution Complaint in a belated manner on 30.11.2024.
l.[m.] The time provided to Respondent to file any rejoinder
was till 17.11.2024. However, the Respondent without any
application for condonation of delay or any sufficient
reasons filed a rejoinder on 04.12.2024. A true copy of the
rejoinder filed by the Appellant is annexed herewith as
Annexure A-5.
m.[n.] On 16.12.2024, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority was
pleased to hear submissions on behalf of the Appellant.
n.[o.] On 06.01.2025, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority passed the
Impugned Order confirming the PAO No. 12/2024.

GROUNDS
4.[5.] Aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant has preferred the present
Appeal on inter alia the following grounds, which are without
prejudice to one another:
a. FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has wrongfully
adjudicated upon the confirmation of the PAO, has not
applied its judicial mind, and has conveniently ignored the
Appellant’s submissions. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has
dealt with the subject PAO in a callous manner. At the
outset, it is submitted that the Impugned Order is liable to
be set aside for the following reasons:
i. The Impugned Order suffers from non-application of
judicial mind and reaffirms the material irregularities
and legal infirmities in the PAO. The Impugned Order
has been passed without furnishing any proper reason
or application of mind. Similarly, even the PAO was
passed without sufficient ‘reasons to believe’ being
recorded by the Respondent.

ii. Failure to Establish Proceeds of Crime – The

Respondent has not provided any documentary
evidence proving that the attached ₹2.70 crores
originated from illegal activities or were laundered.
There is no material placed by the Respondent that
would indicate any flow of Proceeds of Crime to the
Appellant.

[iii.] Non-Application of Judicial Mind by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority – The Impugned Order merely reiterates
Respondent’s allegations without independent
reasoning or analysis. It fails to provide “reasons to
believe” as required under Section 8 of PMLA. Despite
the bank account statement of ICICI Bank Account No.
031705002845 maintained by the Appellant being on
record for the period May 2012-July 2024 as RUD 12
(with transactions running into several crores of debit
and credit over the years), the Respondent has
attached a balance of Rs. 2.70 Crore, that is part of the
balance lying in the bank account on 29.07.2024, as
Direct PoC. Transactions during which the alleged PoC
was generated relates to the year 2015, between
 the dates 06.01.2025 to 07.10.2015, whereas
alleged payments were made to one Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra post February 2017 (which also was returned
after three months as per the Section 50 Statement of
one Mr. Kuntal Ghosh Ex D-3 before the Ld. AA).
Clearly the aspect of purported generation of PoC (and
that too an amount of Rs. 70 Lakh, which also was
returned) by an employee of the Appellant relates to a
period after the transactions alleged by the
Respondent ED in the present case (i.e. in the year
2015). A true copy of the ICICI Bank Account
statement of A/c no. 031705002845 maintained in the
name of the Appellant is annexed as Annexure A-6.

iii.[iv.] Violation of the Principle of Separate Legal Personality –

The Impugned Order wrongfully attributes the alleged
actions of a former employee, Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra, to the Appellant, ignoring established
corporate law principles.

iv.[v.] Excessive Attachment beyond principles in Vijay

Madanlal Chaudhary and Overreach and Procedural
Violations by Respondent – The Respondent has
already attached assets worth ₹151.8 crores,
exceeding the alleged proceeds of crime (₹22.25
crores), making the present attachment excessive
and arbitrary. The Impugned Order fails to appreciate
that the attached proceeds do not emanate from any
criminal activity but are legitimate profits from trading
based on and thus, do not fall within the ambit of
“proceeds of crime” in accordance with Section 2 (1)
(u), PMLA. The Provisional Attachment Order bearing
 PAO No. 08 of 2023 provisionally attached seven (7)
properties of the Appellant amounting to INR
4,56,09,500 were attached.

[vi.] Lack of Justification for Treating Legitimate Trading

Profits as Proceeds of Crime – The Appellant’s stock
trading, which has no temporal connectivity with the
facts alleged in the predicate offence, was done
through SEBI-registered intermediaries and banking
channels, yet Respondent labelled the profits as
proceeds of crime without proof. The Impugned Order
ignores the material fact that the Appellant merely
indulged in screen-based trading in which the
automated system itself matches orders on a price-
time priority basis. The identity of the counter-party is
not accessible and not displayed. Furthermore, these
transactions were made through SEBI- registered
intermediaries.

v.[vii.] Failure to Consider Alternative Regulatory Jurisdiction –

The Respondent overstepped its jurisdiction by
investigating stock market transactions, which should
have been examined by SEBI under its PFUTP
Regulations and accordingly the Respondent has no
jurisdiction over the same.

vi.[viii.] Selective and Contradictory Reliance on Section 50

Statements – The Respondent selectively relied on
unverified statements, ignoring parts where Kuntal
Ghosh admitted that ₹70 lakhs allegedly received by
Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra were returned.
vii.[ix.] Failure to Identify a Money Trail – There is no evidence
of the movement of proceeds of crime from the
scheduled offence to the Appellant, and none of the
brokers, agents, or counterparties involved were made
accused or had their assets attached. The Impugned
Order has not considered that the profits made
between 06.01.2015 and 07.10.2015 precede the
period of alleged crime from 2016 till 2021. It amounts
to placing the cart before the horse.

viii.[x.] Mala fide and Politically Motivated Action – The

Respondent’s attachment targets the Appellant
despite a lack of evidence, while other involved
entities (intermediaries, brokers) were not
investigated, indicating bias and selective prosecution.

ix.[xi.] Misapplication of Burden of Proof (Section 24 PMLA) –

The Appellant is not accused under Section 3 PMLA
and has only been arraigned in the 5th Supplementary
Prosecution Complaint, yet the Adjudicating Authority
wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the Appellant,
violating legal principles.

b. FOR THAT there is a fundamental disconnect between the

alleged scheduled offence and the fact of bringing the
alleged proceeds of crime in the account of the Appellant.
The Complainant Respondent has conveniently, without the
application of mind, qualified the amount in the Appellant’s
account as proceeds of crime without establishing a
connection between the scheduled offence, the generation
of the proceeds of crime, and its linkage with the Appellant
company.
c. FOR THAT it is the Respondent’s case that the scheduled
offence concerns the malpractices adopted during the TET
2014, the results of which were only published on
23.12.2020. As per the definition of “proceeds of crime” and
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, proceeds of crime
must necessarily have a link with the scheduled offence.
Presently, the alleged trades happened between 06.01.2015
and 07.10.2015. However, the alleged tainted monies
arising out of the TET 2014 scam were collected by agents
and sub-agents like Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal and Mr. Kuntal
Ghosh during the period between 2016 – 2022, as is clear
from the Complainant/Respondent’s own case in the OC.
Thus, there is no way in which the tainted monies would
travel back in time to the account of the Appellant, thus
establishing that it is without any connection to the
scheduled offence and hence, untainted. The proceeds of
crime, thus, have nothing to do with the sum of money
present in the Appellant’s account and the Respondent has
miserably failed in establishing a money trail from the
proceeds of crime to the Appellant’s account post the
commission of the scheduled offence.

d. FOR THAT the Respondent has engaged in an abuse of its

powers insofar as it has attached properties above and
beyond the amount of proceeds of crime generated from the
scheduled offence that amount to Rs. 22.25 Crores as per its
own case. The Respondent cannot be allowed to engage in
approbate and reprobate to change the amount of money
that may have originated from the Scheduled Offence in
order to give validity to its clearly ultra vires acts. It is
 imperative that the Respondent establishes a particular
crystallized amount of money before attaching any property
in the interest of justice. The Respondent has failed to do so
and merely seeks to attach the Rs. 2.70 Crores in the
Appellant’s bank account by wrongfully conflating the
alleged involvement of Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra with the
Appellant.

e. FOR THAT in any case, without prejudice to its earlier

submissions, even if it is assumed that Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra did receive the wrongful proceeds of crime to the
tune of Rs. 70 Lakhs, it is submitted that the Respondent
has already attached properties of people and entities
related to Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra above and beyond the
said amount amounting to Rs. 7,46,86,342/- by way of PAO
No. 8 of 2023. Thus, the property concerned in the present
PAO has nothing to do with the offence and is ultra vires the
PMLA as it is beyond the scope of the powers of the
Respondent. It is interesting to note that the properties have
not been attached in the form of “value thereof” but are
attached in the form of direct proceeds which is baseless
and without any supporting reasons.

f. FOR THAT the Respondent has mala fide motives insofar as

it is targeting the Appellant without due cause as it has
already attached assets worth Rs. 151.8 crores (approx.)
which is well beyond the alleged generated proceeds of
crime. The Appellant submits that the Respondent is acting
in a politically motivated manner to achieve the goals of the
political power at the Centre because the CEO of the
Appellant company is an MP from the Diamond Harbour
Parliamentary Constituency and a member of the AITC. The
 present proceedings are thus motivated solely to harass the
Appellant company and have no basis in the law.

g. FOR THAT irrespective of the Respondent’s case, the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority must not have blindly relied on the
averments made by the Respondent in the OC and should
have applied its independent judicial mind before issuing
the SCN and confirming the PAO, which in this case, the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority has failed to. The Show Cause Notice
was issued dated 31.08.2024 by the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority under Section 8(1) of the PMLA requiring the
Appellant to explain why the attached properties should be
released. This notice contained the purported ‘Reasons to
Believe’, which merely reiterated the arguments presented
in the subject OC without any supporting evidence. The Ld.
Adjudicating Authority failed to independently reach their
“Reasons to believe” and merely reiterated the
Respondent’s version of events. Thus, there was a non-
application of mind in issuing the SCN.

h. FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority issued the

Impugned Order accepting the Respondent’s version of
events and merely reproducing the Appellant’s contentions
without any application of judicial mind. Thus, the Impugned
Order suffers from the vice of non-application of judicial
mind as it fails to establish the role of the Appellant
independently and merely relies on the Respondent’s
submissions to colour the Appellant as Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra. The Impugned Order is thus legally flawed and
should be set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

i. FOR THAT ED has not produced an iota of evidence to

substantiate the claim that the movable properties attached
 are in any manner related to the proceeds of crime. The
Respondent has merely relied on oral statements of certain
witnesses without any documentary proof to substantiate
the allegations. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has also
erred in passing the Impugned Order solely on the basis of
some statements of interested parties without any cogent
evidence to corroborate the same.

APPELLANT HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE SCHEDULED OFFENCE

j. FOR THAT the Respondent in the present case has failed to

show the generation and existence of the proceeds of
crime. THE Respondent has failed to show that the
Appellant was connected to the proceeds of crime or
utilized any such proceeds of crime. The Respondent has
failed to form the belief as to the involvement of the
Appellant with the proceeds of crime. The formation of the
belief that there exists proceeds of crime, is mere ipse- dixit
without any judicial application of mind and lacks any
foundation on any cogent material evidence.

k. FOR THAT THE Impugned Order is liable to be set aside as

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider the law
relating to the attachment of properties acquired much
prior to the commission of the scheduled predicate offence.
This is because firstly, such proceeds cannot be termed as
direct proceeds of crime since they have no relation with
the offence and secondly, they cannot be attached as the
“value” of the Proceeds of crime. In this regard, it is
pertinent to note the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Pavana Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate, (2023)
15 SCC 91 which is reproduced hereunder:
 “19. The allegation against the appellant in the complaint
is that she purchased the property worth crores, though
she did not have the source of income which would
generate enough money to buy the subject properties. The
allegation against the appellant is that she allowed and
facilitated Accused 1 Madhukar Angur, to conceal the
siphoned/misappropriated amounts by using her bank
account. Another allegation is that she is shown to have
purchased the second property from Accused 1, though
she did not have the resources to pay the consideration.
The allegation is that she allowed Accused 1 to use her
bank accounts to facilitate siphoning the proceeds of the
crime. Another allegation is that both the first and second
properties have been acquired out of the proceeds of
crime. The first property, ex facie, cannot be said to
have any connection with the proceeds of crime as
the acts constituting the scheduled offence took
place after its acquisition. The case of the appellant is
that she possessed a substantial amount, as can be seen
from the declaration made by her under the Income
Declaration Scheme, 2016 in September 2016 and
therefore, at the time of the acquisition of the second
property, more than sufficient money was available with
her to acquire the second property. The issue of whether
the appellant used tainted money to acquire the second
property can be decided only after the evidence is
adduced. This is not a case where any material is placed
on record to show that the sale consideration was paid
from a particular bank account of the appellant. Therefore,
it is not possible to record a finding at this stage that the
second property was not acquired by using the proceeds of
crime. We also make it clear that we have considered the
issue only in the context of the applicability PMLA. We have
not dealt with the issues of valuation and legality of the
sale deeds.”

l. The same findings have been made by the Punjab and

Haryana High Court in Seema Garg v. Deputy Director,
2020 SCC OnLine P&H 738 and the Kerala High Court in
Davy Varghese v Deputy Director, ED, WP(CRL.) No.
1354 OF 2023 which are not being reproduced hereunder
for the sake of brevity.
m. It is submitted THAT in the present case, the sum of Rs. 2.70
Crores from the trades was brought into the account of the
Appellant between 06.01.2015 and 07.10.2015 while the
Proceeds of Crime from the Scheduled Offence generated
between 2016 to 2022 much past the point of time when
the Rs. 2.7 Crores were acquired. The Ld. Adjudicating
Authority has failed to take note of the fact that the sum of
money was acquired in a bona fide manner through legal
trading as per the SEBI regulations and other prevailing
laws and that the Respondent had overreached its
jurisdiction in attaching properties acquired prior to the
generation of the proceeds of crime.

n. FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to note

the fact that the said sum in the account of the Appellant
has been attached as the direct proceeds of crime which is
impossible considering that they were acquired prior to the
generation of the POC. In any case, the property cannot be
attached even in the form of “value thereof” as that is
allowed only if the property derived or obtained is taken
outside the Country.

o. FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to

appreciate the cardinal principle of separation of corporate
personality. It has wrongfully attached the money in the
bank account of the Appellant by wrongfully attaching the
alleged cˇriminality of its employee to the Company.

p. FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to take

note of the fact that the value of the properties attached far
exceeds the value of the alleged generated proceeds of
crime making such excessive attachment ultra vires.
 THE PROCEEDINGS ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE BAD IN
LAW

q. FOR THAT the Impugned Order is contrary to law since it

disregards the fact that the Respondent has overreached its
jurisdiction in the investigation. It is a well-settled principle
of law that the Respondent is empowered to investigate into
the offence of money laundering alone and not the
underlying predicate offences.

r. FOR THAT the investigation into the legality or illegality of

the trades conducted by the Appellant is a question that
can be probed by the SEBI and the Respondent lacks
jurisdiction to engage in a roving and fishing enquiry on the
same.

s. FOR THAT the Appellant has nothing to do with the

scheduled offence or the offence of money laundering
which can be evidenced from the fact that the Appellant
has not been named either in the FIR or ECIR and the
Respondent has wrongfully attached the bona fide
acquisitions of the Appellant which is in disregard to the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.
Rama Raju v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 152
which is reproduced hereunder:

“Since proceeds of crime is defined to include the value of

any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence,
where a person satisfies the adjudicating authority by
relevant material and evidence having a probative value
that his acquisition is bona fide, legitimate and for fair
market value paid therefor, the adjudicating
authority must carefully consider the material and evidence
on record (including the reply furnished by a noticee in
response to a notice issued under Section 8 (1) and the
 material or evidence furnished along therewith to establish
his earnings, assets or means to justify the bona fides in the
acquisition of the property); and if satisfied as to the bona
fide acquisition of the property, relieve such property from
provisional attachment by declining to pass an order of
confirmation of the provisional attachment; either in respect
of the whole or such part of the
property provisionally attached in respect whereof bona
fide acquisition by a person is established, at the stage of
the Section 8(2) process. A further opportunity of
establishing bona fide acquisition of property or that the
property in question is not proceeds of crime involved in
money-laundering is available and mandated, prior to the
adjudicating authority passing an order of confiscation,
under Section 8(6).”
NON-APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL MIND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER
AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY.

t. FOR THAT the Impugned Order is bad in law, illegal and

vitiated by nonapplication of mind by the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority. It is submitted that the Impugned Order is replete
with extracts from the various pleadings of the parties and
lacks any independent analysis or application of judicial
mind. This blatant non-application of mind is evident from
the fact that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed
the attachment of movable asset of the Appellant even
though the transactions were much before the TET 2014
examination, the alleged irregularities of which form the
predicate offence in the present matter.

u. FOR THAT the complete non-application of judicial mind is

also evident from the fact that though the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority notes the major pleadings of, inter alia, the
Appellant and the counter reply by the Respondent, the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority had failed to deal with the specific
submissions made by the Appellant. The Ld. Authority has
only analysed the contentions regarding the statutory
 compliance of Section 5 and Section 8, PMLA, the burden of
proof under Section 24 of the PMLA and the concept of
attachment of the properties on the concept of “value
thereof”. Even in this analysis, the Authority has merely
reproduced certain judicial precedent without any reference
to the specific contentions of the Appellant in any manner.
It is to be noted that the Impugned Order has been passed
by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is devoid of any reasons
as the same has been passed in a mechanical manner
without dealing with any of the contentions/ submissions
made by the Appellant.

[v.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to note
the settled law relating to the formation of independent
reasons to believe in the issuance of a Show Cause Notice.
An Show Cause Notice cannot be issued routinely and
needs to be accompanied by reasons. The Ld. Adjudicating
Authority was supposed to record his own reasons but has
failed to do so and has mechanically issued the Show Cause
Notice by relying blindly on the Respondent’s version of
events and reproducing the same. This is in contrast to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in J. Sekar
v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523 and the
Calcutta High Court in Excel Powmin Ltd. v. Union of
India, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 384 wherein it has been
held that Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA envisage 2 different
and separate “Reasons to Believe”. The relevant portion of
the judgment in Excel Powmin is reproduced hereunder:

“26. A perusal of the scope of the cause to be shown by the

noticee under Section 8(1) itself reveals that the noticee, in
the cause shown by him, has to comprehensively deal with
all the aspects as enumerated in Section 8(1) of the PMLA.
One of such conditions is the evidence on which he relies
and other relevant information and particulars. However, it
is well within the scope of such cause to be shown by the
noticee to point out that there was no basis for the reasons
to believe that the person has committed an offence under
Section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, which is
the basis of the service of notice by the AA under Section
8(1) of the PMLA.
27. Without an indication as to the reasons to believe for
which the AA issued the notice, the noticee would be
handicapped, without any fault of his own, from taking
appropriate defence on all aspects of the matter. The
evidence on which he relies and other relevant information,
as indicated in Section 8(1), might also pertain to the
absence of any basis of the reasons to believe, on which
premise the notice itself was issued, thereby vitiating the
notice and the ensuing hearing.
28. As such, although it is not specifically engrafted in
Section 8(1) of the PMLA as to there being any requirement
of communicating the reasons to believe arrived at by the
AA to the noticee, such requirement has to be read into the
provision to attribute a proper meaning to the same. A
meaningful and complete show-cause and consequentially
hearing, cannot take place without the noticee having a
clear idea as to what were the reasons for believing the
allegations against him.
33. On the other hand, Section 8(1) envisages that, on
receipt of a complaint under Section 5(5) of the PMLA or
applications made under Section 17(4) or Section 18(10), “if
the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe …” that
any person has committed the offences mentioned therein,
it may serve a notice as envisaged under Section 8(1) of the
PMLA. As such, the exercise of arriving at reasons to believe
by the AA prior to issuance of a notice asking the noticee to
show-cause on the counts as indicated in the said
application, has to be arrived at independently by the AA,
irrespective of the reasons to believe attributed for the
initial notice under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. Hence, the
very fact that the AA merely adopted the reasons to believe
attributed at the stage of Section 5(1) of the PMLA, shows
that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the AA,
which palpably failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by
law and to fulfill a necessary pre-condition of the notice
under Section 8(1), that is, arriving at independent reasons
to believe regarding commission of the offence. Such fact
 itself vitiates the notice and consequentially further
proceedings.”
It is submitted that in the case at hand, the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority has wrongfully issued the SCN without recording
independent “reasons to believe” and thus, the whole
proceedings thereafter should be vitiated as this strikes at
the root of the matter.

v.[w.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has also erred in
passing the Impugned Order insofar as the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority has also not applied its independent judicial mind
to the PAO and OC, rather, it has come to a conclusion that
the attached properties are proceeds of crime purely on the
basis of the Respondent’s averments which are wholly false
and based on surmises and conjectures. It is trite law that if
the material in hand has no nexus with the belief or there is
no material or tangible information for the formation of
belief then in such a case the reasonable belief is vitiated.

w.[x.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to

provide any reasons for confirmation of the Impugned
Attachment, and has, in a 39-page judgment, effectively
extracted/ paraphrased submissions of parties (and that too
in an incomplete manner). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held in multiple judgments that reasons for findings are
basic to judicial pronouncements, and failure to provide
reasons is a violation of principles of natural justice. The
aforesaid findings are not backed by any reasoning
whatsoever. The Impugned Order is liable to be set aside on
this ground alone, and as such, the present Appeal ought to
be allowed.
 x.[y.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside
on the ground that the acts of the Respondent are ultra
vires as they have attached properties worth Rs. 151.8
Crores already despite not having established a “crystallized
amount” as proceeds of crime. The Respondent has not
established through evidence that any amount other than a
sum of Rs. 22.25 Crores was collected from job aspirants
illegally. Thus, the Respondent has attached properties
worth much more than these alleged POC making their acts
ultra vires.

y.[z.] FOR THAT it is trite law that an administrative order

which may affect the rights and liberty of a person must
pass the test of reasonableness and fairness and the order
should not take irrelevant material into consideration. The
same should solely consider and rely upon relevant
material(s) to arrive at a decision. Therefore, the term
‘reasons to believe’ as indicated in Section 5(1) of the
PMLA, 2002 must satisfy the test mentioned above. On
perusal of the PAO, it appears that the said PAO is neither
based on reasons or materials so as to pass the test of
reasonableness, fairness, and the purported reasons and
materials indicated therein are not at all relevant for the
purpose of coming to the conclusion that the funds in the
bank account of the Appellant company has been acquired
using proceeds of crime or has any correlation with the
scheduled offence.

z.[aa.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order fails to capture that the
purported reasons and materials indicated in the PAO are
not at all relevant for the purpose of coming to the
conclusion that the available balance (to the tune of approx.
 Rs. 2.7 Crores) maintained by the Appellant in its ICICI Bank
Account (A/c no. 031705002845) is direct proceeds of crime
arising out of the alleged teachers’ recruitment scam.

aa.[bb.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to

consider that the properties attached by way of the PAO are
not proceeds of crime, and appear to have been attached
on account of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of executive
power. The movable properties that stand attached relating
to the Appellant have been/ are being used by the All India
Trinamool Congress, and the Respondent/ED is aware of the
same. It is ostensibly on this account that the PAO has been
passed, despite previous attachment orders having been
confirmed for amounts far more than Proceeds of Crime
alleged as having emanated from the scheduled offence
(TET Scam). The total amount attached therefore excluding
the properties attached by way of the present PAO therefore
stand at Rs. 2.7 Crore. Admittedly, if the Respondent has
already attached properties to the tune of Rs. 151.8 Crores.
This may be compared with the allegation of payment of
bribe/ illegal gratification of Rs. 3.25 Crore by 325
candidates to be qualified in the TET-2014 examination.

bb.[cc.] FOR THAT even if it were to be assumed without

admitting the contents of statements under Section 50
PMLA of Mr. Tapas Kumar Mandal who is an accused himself,
a total amount of Rs. 19 Crore were paid to Mr. Kuntal
Ghosh. There is no allegation of any flow of such money
from Mr. Kuntal Ghosh to Mr. Sujay Bhadra, who was
associated with the Appellant. Clearly, there is therefore no
link even pleaded with the proceeds from the scheduled
 offence and the Appellant. The Respondent’s best case is
that:

i. Kuntal Ghosh received Rs. 3.25 crores from Tapas

Kumar Mondal for getting 325 candidates
qualified/passed in TET 2014;

ii. Kuntal Ghosh received Rs. 19 crores from Tapas Kumar

Mondal on the instructions of Shantanu Banerjee for
the purpose of getting candidates illegally qualified
and appointed as teachers.

However, there is no allegation of any flow of such money

from Mr. Kuntal Ghosh to Mr. Sujay Bhadra who was
associated with the Appellant back in 2015 for a sum of Rs.
22.25 crores.

cc.[dd.] FOR THAT the Respondent did not indicate and/or

rely/place any cogent material on record to show that any
amount other than a sum of Rs. 22.25 crores, as indicated
above, was collected from the job aspirants for the purpose
of getting them illegally qualified and appointed. Therefore,
the Respondent is bound to limit its case for the purpose of
identifying proceeds of crime, in connection with the instant
predicate offence, limited to the aforesaid sum i.e. Rs.
22.25 crores. On the contrary, in order to charge an entity
or a person to have received proceeds of crime, the
Respondent must show the following:

i. Generation of proceeds of crime by relying on

material(s) to show that the candidate has either paid
a particular crystallized amount of money to someone
associated with the Appellant;
 ii. somebody has admitted to having received a
particular crystallized amount of money for getting the
candidates illegally qualified and appointed as primary
teachers;

iii. The period of time when such crystallized money was

exchanged, or/and

iv. the specific crystallized amount of money (proceeds of

crime from the predicate offence) as generated from
the aforesaid candidates has travelled to the
person/entity whose property is sought to be attached
– namely the Appellant along with the mode and
manner of such ‘travel’ along with the time period of
such ‘travel’.

dd.[ee.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to

appreciate that the instant PAO miserably fails to establish
that the Appellant has received any proceeds of crime
whatsoever in terms of the pointers summarised above. The
instant PAO merely seeks to attach a sum of Rs. 2.70 Crores
(approx.) as held by the Appellant in its ICICI bank account
by showing the alleged involvement of Sujay Krishna
Bhadra with the Appellant and linking the purported
conversion of cash to monies in bank accounts to TET 2014.

ee.[ff.] FOR THAT the Respondents have failed to establish that

any funds or monies or any part of the Rs. 22.25 crores
travelled to the Appellant. It is therefore the Respondent’s
own case that no part of the alleged proceeds of crime has
ever travelled to Appellant as:
 i. Kuntal Ghosh received a token amount of Rs. 57.40
Lacs from Tapas Kumar Mondal for the purpose of
arranging appointments of 325 candidates.

ii. Sujay Krishna Bhadra received Rs. 70 Lacs from Kuntal

Ghosh for getting illegal work of facilitating
candidates to pass TET 2014 and getting them
appointed as teachers.

iii. Partha Chatterjee received a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs from

Kuntal Ghosh on the instructions of Sujay Krishna
Bhadra for facilitating candidates to pass TET 2014
and getting them appointed as teachers.

iv. Shantanu Banerjee received Rs. 1 Crore from Kuntal

Ghosh for various types of patronage for illegal
activities.

Therefore, both the PAOs in respect of the Appellant are

beyond the identified/alleged proceeds of crime in
connection with the alleged TET 2014 scam.

ff.[gg.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order fails to provide reasons

that how the Appellant has any monies travelling from Mr.
Sujay Krishna Bhadra for the purposes of trade in Future &
Options, as claimed by the Respondent. It is absurd and
illogical as the Respondent itself has relied upon the
statement of Kuntal Ghosh dated 01.02.2023, whereby, he
stated that he allegedly paid Rs. 70 Lacs to Mr. Sujay
Krishna Bhadra and he returned the Rs. 70 Lacs.

gg.[hh.] FOR THAT the Respondent has categorically failed to

establish that any amount of money in relation to the TET
2014 was given to Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra. No recovery of
 any alleged sums has been made from Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra. The Appellant was in legitimate business wherein
trading was part of the commercial works. A true copy of
the statements of Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra (RUD 4) is
annexed herewith as Annexure A-7.

THE APPELLANT HAS ACQUIRED THE SUM IN A BONA FIDE MANNER

AND THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS

hh.[ii.] FOR THAT the Respondent has failed to establish how

legitimate screen-based trading through automated
systems could be accused of being premeditated hoax
transactions. All such transactions have been done through
legitimate banking channels and SEBI registered
intermediaries.

ii.[jj.] FOR THAT no evidence has been brought on record by

the Respondent to show that the money generated from the
predicate offence travelled to Appellant or Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra or any other alleged agents of Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra which ultimately was used for the share transaction
in illiquid stocks based on which the Appellant generated a
sum of Rs. 2.70 crores in artificial profits.

jj.[kk.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has erred in

appreciating that as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India
reported at (2022) 6 SCR 382, it was held that unexplained
cash per se does not attract the offence of laundering or
even be called “proceeds of crime”. The Respondent has
conflated the concept of unexplained transactions with
proceeds of crime. By claiming an underlying fraud in the
books of the Appellant Company, its movable assets have
 been attached by way of the PAO, and confirmation of such
attachment is sought by way of the PAO. It is clear that all
transactions undertaken by the Appellant including trades
in illegal stocks, were undertaken in the normal course of
business in a bona fide manner with due compliance of SEBI
Regulations and other prevailing laws in India. Moreover,
unexplained amounts in the hands of a company cannot, in
any circumstance, be declared proceeds of crime. In the
present case, all transactions stand explained, and are
backed by contemporaneous records.

kk.[ll.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order failed to consider that

even if, in arguendo, the allegations made by the
ED/Complainant are accepted on the face of it. The
ED/Complainant does not have the requisite jurisdiction to
investigate into legality and validity of the trades which
allegedly resulted into generation of artificial
profits/losses. Any actions in violation of SEBI (Prohibition of
Fraudulent and Unfair Trading Practices related to Securities
Markets) Regulations (“PFUTP Regulations”) ought to be
inquired into by the SEBI.

ll.[mm.] FOR THAT the Appellant has acquired the sum of Rs.
2.70 Crores in a bona fide manner in the normal course of
business through proper banking channels and has nothing
to do with either the scheduled offence or the offence of
money laundering. It is submitted that when a party
acquires property in a bona fide manner and has no nexus
with the offence, the properties of the said person should
not be attached. This Hon’ble Tribunal has held the same in
Krushabh Jagdishbhai Patel v. The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement as under:
 “27.8 The provisions of Act do not empower the authorities
to trace and chase property purchased by bonafide buyers
like the appellant in the present case instead of the
consideration thereof which is passed on to the seller of the
same i.e. value thereof. By provisionally attaching the
property of a bonafide buyer and its confirmation thereafter,
as has been done in the present case, such a buyer, for no
fault on his part would be deprived of possession of
property till criminal proceedings against some third party
are concluded under section 8(4) and 8(5), which is
contrary to provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of
India.”

In the present case, the trades were genuine and the fact of
the counterparty being the same is a mere coincidence and
not a malafide on behalf of the Appellant. In fact, this might
have occurred on account of the Automated system which
on a price-time priority basis matches parties without the
knowledge of the Appellant. In fact, the intermediary was a
SEBI-registered body.
mm.[nn.] FOR THAT the Appellant is a bonafide acquirer of the
funds and all transactions happened through proper
banking channels which would not have been the case had
the Appellant been involved in the offence of money
laundering. The funds were acquired much prior to the FIR
or ECIR and the Appellant company has no nexus with the
scheduled offence or those accused of the scheduled
offence. This Hon’ble tribunal has previously held in the
case of Rajendra Kumar Jain v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2019 SCC OnLine ATPMLA 51, that when
a bona fide transaction is concluded prior to the registration
of the FIR and ECIR and the funds used are legitimate funds
documented through banking channels, it cannot be said
that they are involved in the predicate offence or the
 offence of money laundering. This is the precise case of the
Appellants as well.

nn.[oo.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order failed to consider that a

chain was established between the Appellant (through Mr.
Sujay Krishna Bhadra) and the brokers (Kayan and Destiny).
It has been alleged that the entire modus operandi involved
Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra arranging cash on behalf of the
Appellant to be transferred to the brokers (Kayan and
Destiny) through the intermediaries. Such intermediaries
including the brokers were stated to be hand in glove with
the Appellant to participate in the so-called illiquid share
trade with the final counter party in exchange for cash.
Such intermediaries have themselves confessed to have
taken a margin/cut/commission for making the alleged
accommodations for the Appellant.

oo.[pp.] FOR THAT it is clear from the statements of the

intermediaries recorded under Section 50 PMLA, that none
of them who facilitated such trade transactions, were asked
if the money they received from the Appellant had any
connection with the TET 2014, or whether the money they
paid to the loss-making counter parties had been derived
from or have any connection whatsoever with the TET 2014.
None of these persons were asked whether such monies
given to them allegedly by Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra, had
originated from the bribes allegedly collected in relation to
the TET 2014 scam and which form part of proceeds of
crime in the present case.

pp.[qq.] FOR THAT none of the intermediaries have made a

single statement that any of the trade transactions had any
connection with money originating from the so-called TET
 2014 scam. Therefore, a clear gap exists between the
alleged ‘proceeds of crime’ emanating from the scheduled
offence and the legitimate illiquid share trades executed by
the Appellant. In fact, there is nothing on record to link the
transactions of the Appellant to any of the scheduled
offences allegedly committed in relation to the alleged TET
2014 recruitment scam as all the transactions of the
Appellant in connection with the instant case predates the
alleged proceeds generated from the so-called recruitment
scam.

THE RELIANCE ON THE SECTION 50 STATEMENTS IS MISPLACED

qq.[rr.] FOR THAT the Respondent has relied on the Section 50

Statements of Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal and Mr. Kuntal
Ghosh which are contradictory, incomplete, and incoherent.
It is a trite position of law that Section 50 statements need
to be given weight at the end of the trial. In the case at
hand, this is a stage much prior to trial. Courts have
consistently held that there cannot be a complete reliance
on Section 50 statements at the time of considering bail
applications or earlier and should only be considered during
the merits. The present stage is much prior to trial as this is
the stage of provisional attachment and thus, the complete
reliance on the Section 50 statements is misplaced.
[Chandra Prakash Khandelwal v Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1094; Preeti
Chandra v Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 3622] In any case, section 50 statements need
to be corroborated by other evidence, which the
Respondent has miserably failed in.
rr.[ss.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to
consider that the Respondent, relying on the witness
statements avers that the loss-making counter parties were
handed over equal amounts of cash through agents of Mr.
Sujay Krishna Bhadra. However, the said agents have not
been examined to testify the statements of the witness
relied on by the Respondent to bring home the charge
against the Appellant. No particulars were provided and/or
relied upon by the Respondent to specify the date, time and
amount of money directly collected from Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra or through his agents.

ss.[tt.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to

consider that no corroborative statement, either from Mr.
Sujay Krishna Bhadra or his alleged agents, was relied upon
by the Respondent to prove the allegation of handing over
of cash amounts for the purpose of generation of artificial
profits through share trading.

tt.[uu.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to

consider that the counter parties who allegedly have
bought the shares by paying money to the Appellant, were
not made accused and/or their properties were not attached
even though they were allegedly involved and received the
POC and/or dealt with the same.

uu.[vv.] FOR THAT irrespective of the evidentiary value of the

Section 50 statements, it is submitted that the Respondent
has selectively relied on certain portions of the statements
to conveniently make its case which is in prejudice to the
Appellant. The Respondent has conveniently ignored the
portions where Mr. Kuntal Ghosh himself admitted that the
Rs. 70 Lakhs paid to Mr. Bhadra were returned by him.
vv.[ww.] FOR THAT this abovesaid fact about return of alleged
Rs. 70 lakhs has been conveniently left out by the
Respondent in its pleadings and the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority has also overlooked this fact. It is submitted that
in the absence of any money being received by the accused
Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra from the scheduled offences
committed in connection with the TET 2014, the
Respondent proceeded to conduct a roving and fishing
enquiry into the business of the Appellant.

ww.[xx.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to

consider that clearly from the statements of the
intermediaries recorded under Section 50 PMLA none of
them who facilitated such trade transactions, were asked if
the money they received from the Appellant had any
connection with the TET 2014, or whether the money they
paid to the loss-making counter parties had been derived
from or have any connection whatsoever with the TET 2014.
None of these persons were asked whether such monies
given to them allegedly by Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra, had
originated from the bribes allegedly collected in relation to
the TET 2014 scam and which form part of the proceeds of
crime in the present case. Further, none of the
intermediaries have made a single statement that any of
the trade transactions had any connection with money
originating from the so-called TET 2014 scam. Therefore, a
clear gap exists between the alleged ‘proceeds of crime’
emanating from the scheduled offence and the legitimate
illiquid share trades executed by the Appellant.

xx.[yy.] FOR THAT basis the statements relied upon by the

Respondent, the mysterious cash transactions alleged to
 have been undertaken by Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra were
eventually picked up or delivered by a person named
Chandan Banerjee (Refer Q.11, Page 431-432,
Statement of Mr. Birendra Kumar Jhunjhunwala).
However, no statements have been recorded for Chandan
Banerjee. No evidence has been produced to state that
Chandan Banerjee made any dealings on instructions from
Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra. Furthermore, no cash has been
traced back to or coming from Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra, let
alone the Appellant.

yy.[zz.] FOR THAT basis the statements relied upon by the

Respondent, cash transactions alleged to have been
undertaken by Appellant were coordinated and collected by
Ganesh Shaw and Mukesh Agarwal (Refer Q.6, Page 301,
Statement of Mr. Harsh Vardhan Kayan). The details
for collection, location and amount were allegedly conveyed
over whatsapp texts, texts or calls. However, other than
bald statements no evidence or record of any such
communications has been placed. No evidence has been
produced to state that Mr. Ganesh Shaw and Mr. Mukesh
Agarwal made any dealings on instructions from or with
Sujay Krishna Bhadra, let alone Appellant.

THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY AND THE RESPONDENT HAVE

IGNORED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY

zz.[aaa.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has

wrongfully attributed the acts of an employee to the
company. Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra was an employee of the
Appellant and was appointed as the COO on 01.03.2016.
This is against the principle of law enumerated by the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Shree Hanuman Cotton
 Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4604
where the Court upheld the principle of separate legal
entity of the Company to hold that the actions of a few
shareholders cannot be attributed to the Company. The
relevant excerpt is reproduced hereunder:

“40. It seems a mere childish whim and paranoid fancy of

Respondent 2 agency and its officials to apprehend a ghost
where there is none to attach a fraction of the assets of the
Company “in proportion with the shares held” by the
accused person in the Company, without considering the
rudiments of company jurisprudence. Even if the corporate
veil is pierced to shreds and lifted beyond recognition, a
holder of certain shares of a company, acquired much prior
to the alleged date of crime, cannot have an iota of right
whatsoever over the assets of the Company, also acquired
much before such date. The argument that the Company
may deal with or encumber its assets, thereby denuding the
value of its shares, is too remote to carry any weight.”

aaa.[bbb.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as also the

Respondent herein has conflated the concept of property
of a company vis-à-vis property of its shareholders/ officers.

bbb.[ccc.] FOR THAT it is amply clear that the Respondent is

blindly proceeding in its investigation and has admittedly
attached/seized more money/properties than what has been
allegedly revealed as proceeds of crime in its own
investigation. If this action were permitted in respect of the
Appellant, then every entity that a purported accused is
employed with, would start having its assets attached on
account of such association with an accused person.

ccc.[ddd.] FOR THAT the Respondent does not have the liberty
to provisionally attach any and every alleged tainted money
that it may come across which is not connected to the
proceeds of crime generated through commission of the
 instant predicate offence. Even if it finds monies that are
not explained from any other source, the Respondent
cannot attach/seize the same while investigating a
particular case (investigation is predicate offence specific).
Only if such proceeds of crime are linked to the subject
predicate offence, can the Respondent go after the same.

ddd.[eee.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has erred

in appreciating that as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of
India reported at (2022) 6 SCR 382, it was held that
unexplained cash per se does not attract the offence of
laundering, or even be called “proceeds of crime”. The
Respondent has conflated the concept of unexplained
transactions with proceeds of crime. By claiming an
underlying fraud in illiquid trade, the bank account of the
Appellant Company and its assets have been attached by
way of the PAO, and confirmation of such attachment is
sought by way of the PAO. It is clear that all transactions
undertaken by the Appellant were documented, and no
contemporaneous objections were raised by any of the
parties to the transactions in question during the relevant
point of time. Moreover, unexplained amounts in the hands
of a company cannot, in any circumstance, be declared
proceeds of crime. In the present case, all transactions
stand explained and are governed by the rules of SEBI.

THE RESPONDENT’S ACTIONS ARE MALICIOUSLY TARGETING THE

APPELLANT

eee.[fff.] FOR THAT if the Respondent’s case were taken to be

true, then the amount attributable to Mr. Sujay Krishna
Bhadra from the proceeds of crime would be Rs. 2.9 Crores
 (approx.). The Respondent has already attached the
property related to Mr. Bhadra in a previous PAO No. 2143
of 2023 and has proceeded to attach the same amount of
money in a subsequent PAO (the present one). This act is
not only unlawful but it also reeks of the malafides of the
Respondent in targeting the Appellant company because its
CEO is an MP from the AITC.

fff.[ggg.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to

consider that the bank account attached by way of the PAO
are not proceeds of crime, and appear to have been
attached on account of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of
executive power. It is ostensibly on this account that the
PAO has been passed, despite previous attachment orders
having been confirmed for amounts far more than proceeds
of crime alleged as having emanated from the scheduled
offence (TET Scam). This may be compared with the
allegation of payment of bribe/ illegal gratification of Rs.
3.25 Crore by 325 candidates to be qualified in the TET-
2014 examination.

ggg.[hhh.] FOR THAT no action has been taken by the

Respondent against the
intermediaries/brokers/agents/counterparties which
highlights that the Respondent is on a roving and fishing
enquiry against the Appellant in bad faith. The Respondent
has singularly targeted the Appellant and has not taken
action qua any of the intermediaries/brokers/agents/counter
parties who allegedly form a chain of command between
Mr. Sujay Krishna Bhadra and the brokers. This is against
the grain of Article 14 as the Prosecution cannot be allowed
to pick and choose some persons to prosecute and decide
 not to prosecute others. [State Of Tripura v. Ranjit
Debbarma, 2016 SCC OnLine Tri 203]

hhh.[iii.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order has no averment that

cogently demonstrates how the property attached in the
present case may be concealed/ transferred or dealt with in
any manner that would lead to frustration of proceedings
under the chapter. On the contrary, the amounts in the
bank account of the Appellant, as attached, are greater
than the alleged amounts generated from trade in Futures
& Options. It is settled law that for any investigation to
commence under the PMLA, the generation of proceeds of
crime from the commission of a scheduled offence is a sine
qua non. However, the Appellant’s amount in the bank
account can by no means be categorised as proceeds of
crime in relation to TET 2014 scam.

SECTION 24 OF THE PMLA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE

iii.[jjj.] FOR THAT the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has wrongly

applied the principle enshrined in Section 24 to reverse the
burden of proof and held that the Appellant has failed to
prove that the properties are not tainted. It is submitted
that the reverse burden of proof under Section 24, PMLA
cannot be invoked because the presumption is only qua a
person who is accused having committed the offence under
Section 3 which is not the case here as the Appellant had
no relation with the offence of money laundering and has
neither been named in the chargesheet/FIR/ECIR. Thus, the
reverse burden of proof will not be applicable in the present
case.
jjj.[kkk.] FOR THAT the Impugned Order records “In view
thereof the Adjudicating Authority is mandatorily required,
unless the contrary is proved, to presume that such
proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. The
raising of presumption under section 24(a) is thus justified.
The material pertaining to the commission of the scheduled
offence, the emergence of the proceeds by commission of
the Scheduled offence, clearly establishes the existence of
proceeds of crime. The Defendants have not established
anything contrary thereto. In terms of section 24 once it is
shown that there exist proceeds of crime, which are present
in this case, Prima- facie the amount so earned from the
scheduled offences and criminal activity relating thereto is
utilized by the Defendants for their gain. Thus money
laundering is presumed as well as is established. In order to
rebut this presumption, it was absolutely essential for the
Defendants to show that there was no emergence of
proceeds of crime. The Defendants have however failed to
show that. Nothing is produced by the Defendants, which
would rebut the presumption. The burden to prove that the
property is not proceeds of crime and were not therefore
tainted, rests with the Defendants […]” It is submitted that
there is no reasoning provided by the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority as to how the Appellant could not discharge the
burden of proof. The appellant in its reply to the Show
Cause Notice refuted all the allegations in detail and
provided documents for the same. However, no
independent analysis of the material which has been relied
upon by the Appellant has been done in the Impugned
Order.
kkk.[lll.] FOR THAT it is relevant to mention that no role has
been ascribed to the Appellant or its directors either for
collection of the said amount from the candidates or from
any other person claiming to be the representative of such
candidates. There is no material in the said PAO to show
that such amount has come into the possession of the
Appellant and/or its director from any of the alleged
candidates either directly or indirectly. It is settled law that
to implicate a person/entity, the prosecution ought to
provide cogent materials to proceed against and/or take
coercive steps. The mandate of Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002
makes it amply clear that there ought to be proper reasons
to be recorded in writing and the same ought to be backed
with cogent reasoning and cannot merely be based on
surmises, whims and fancies of the officers concerned.

lll.[mmm.] FOR THAT it is a non-negotiable requirement under

the statutory bounds of PMLA that the ‘proceeds of crime’
generated must relate to the predicate offence mentioned
in the Schedule to the PMLA, and such ‘proceeds of crime’
would then be “laundered” into the financial system as
untainted proceeds/ monies. In the instant case, the only
link between Appellant and the alleged proceeds of crime,
as demonstrated by the Respondent, is Sujay Krishna
Bhadra. However, the Respondent has conveniently and
purposefully supressed and concealed the fact that Mr.
Sujay Krishna Bhadra was never in possession of the
proceeds of crime as alleged or at all.

mmm.[nnn.] FOR THAT in any case, the Appellant has

submitted enough material on record to prove their bona
 fides and that should be enough to discharge the burden of
proof, if any.

5.[6.] The Impugned Order dated 06.01.2025 has been passed by

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in exercise of its powers under
Section 8(1) of the PMLA and as such an appeal from the said
Order lies to this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of
the Act. Therefore, this Hon’ble Tribunal has the jurisdiction to
hear and decide the present Appeal. The present appeal is being
filed within the limitation period as per Section 26 of the PMLA.
Grave prejudice and irreparable injury shall be caused to the
Appellant if the instant Appeal is not allowed as prayed for.
6.[7.] The instant appeal is being filed within limitation as per
Section 26(3) PMLA.
7.[8.] The Appellant seeks liberty to take any other ground during
the course of the arguments of the instant appeal.
8.[9.] Grave prejudice and irreparable injury shall be caused to the
Appellant if the instant Appeal is not allowed as prayed for.
9.[10.] That the instant appeal is being filed bona fide and may be
allowed in the interest of justice.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,

it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased
to:

a. Set aside the Impugned Order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority in OC No. 2400/2024; and

b. Quash and set aside Provisional Attachment Order No. 12/2024

dated 29.07.2024 and direct forthwith release of the movable
 property of the Appellant attached by the Respondent as Direct
PoC; and

c. Pass any other order that this Tribunal deems fit and in the
interest of justice.

APPELLANT
M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED

DRAWN AND FILED BY:

VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com

Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING STAY OF OPERATION OF THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LD.
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (PMLA) IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
NO. 2400 OF 2024 TITLED “DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE
OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE
LIMITED” WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHIOWETH:

1. The present Appeal is being filed under Section 26 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against
the Judgment and Final Order (“Impugned Order”) dated
06.01.2025 received on 07.01.2025 by email passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi
(“Adjudicating Authority”) in Original Complaint No.
2400/2024 (“OC”) in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022
(“ECIR”) pursuant to which, the Respondent passed a
Provisional Attachment Order 12/2024 dated 29.07.2024
(“PAO”) to attach the Appellant’s bank balance of ₹2.70 Crore
 as “Direct PoC” [Page 2 of the OC] that the Appellant has in
fact obtained in the usual course of its business and cannot be
attributable to or have its origin from or in relation to TET 2014.
The Respondent attached the following movable property
erroneously categorising it as direct proceeds of crime:

A/c Holder Bank Account Balance

Provisionally
attached
M/s Leaps and 031705002845 1.70 Crores
Bounds Pvt. Ltd. ICICI Bank

2. That the contents of the captioned appeal including the grounds

are being relied upon and be read as part and parcel of the
present Application.
3. That the present Application is being filed seeking stay of the
Impugned Order and to restrict the Respondent from taking any
further steps with respect to the attached bank account.
4. It is further stated that there is absolutely no basis upon which
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has passed the Impugned Order.
As has been stated in the Appeal, the said money has been
acquired with untainted money and has absolutely no link with
the scheduled offences as well as the underlying ECIR.
5. That the impugned Order further does not consider the
threshold set out in Section 5 PMLA, i.e., there is no discussion,
much less an allegation of likelihood that any or part of the
property may be dealt with in a manner so as to frustrate the
proceedings. There is no justification for treating the Appellant’s
lawfully earned funds as direct proceeds of crime, especially in
the absence of any connection to the scheduled offence.
6. That the Impugned Order discloses no application of mind by
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Further, there is nothing on
record to substantiate the allegations of the Respondent.
7. That the Respondent has not set out any exceptional
circumstances nor has it placed on record any material that
would lead to an apprehension that the Appellant is likely
transfer the said amounts in the bank account.
8. In view of the above, the Applicant humbly prays for a stay of
operation of the Impugned Order and/or a direction that the
Respondent Agency not to proceed under Section 8(4) PMLA.
9. That the present Application is bona fide and in the interest of
justice.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,

it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

a. Stay the operation of the Impugned Order dated 06.01.2025 in

Original Complaint No. 2400/2024 in connection with ECIR No.
KLZO-II/19/2022 to attach the Appellant’s bank balance of
₹2.70 Crore as “Direct PoC”; and

b. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

APPELLANT
THROUGH

VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
 LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com

Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING URGENT LISTING OF THE PRESENT

APPEAL WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHIOWETH:

1. The present Appeal is being filed under Section 26 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against
the Judgment and Final Order (“Impugned Order”) dated
06.01.2025 received on 07.01.2025 by email passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi
(“Adjudicating Authority”) in Original Complaint No.
2400/2024 (“OC”) in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022
(“ECIR”) pursuant to which, the Respondent passed a
Provisional Attachment Order 12/2024 dated 29.07.2024
(“PAO”) to attach the Appellant’s bank balance of ₹2.70 Crore
as “Direct PoC” [Page 2 of the OC] that the Appellant has in
fact obtained in the usual course of its business and cannot be
attributable to or have its origin from or in relation to TET 2014.
2. The Respondent attached the following movable property
erroneously categorising it as direct proceeds of crime:

A/c Holder Bank Account Balance

Provisionally
attached
M/s Leaps and 031705002845 2.70 Crores
Bounds Pvt. Ltd. ICICI Bank

3. That the contents of the captioned appeal including the grounds

are being relied upon and be read as part and parcel of the
present Application.
4. That the present Application is being filed seeking stay of the
Impugned Order and to restrict the Respondent from taking any
further steps with respect to the attached bank account.
5. It is further stated that there is absolutely no basis upon which
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has passed the Impugned Order.
As has been stated in the Appeal, the said money has been
acquired with untainted money and has absolutely no link with
the scheduled offences as well as the underlying ECIR.
6. That the impugned Order further does not consider the
threshold set out in Section 5 PMLA, i.e., there is no discussion,
much less an allegation of likelihood that any or part of the
property may be dealt with in a manner so as to frustrate the
proceedings. There is no justification for treating the Appellant’s
lawfully earned funds as direct proceeds of crime, especially in
the absence of any connection to the scheduled offence.
7. That the Impugned Order discloses no application of mind by
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Further, there is nothing on
record to substantiate the allegations of the Respondent.
8. In view of the above, the Applicant is seeking an urgent listing
of the accompanying Appeal along with Application for interim
relief.
9. That the present Application is bona fide and in the interest of
justice. Grave prejudice shall be caused to the Appellant if the
present Application is not allowed.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated

hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
be pleased to:

a. Allow the present Application and list the accompanying

Appeal at the earliest possible date; and
b. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

APPELLANT

THROUGH

VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com
Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALONG WITH
AFFIDAVIT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHIOWETH:

1. The present Appeal is being filed under Section 26 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against
the Judgment and Final Order (“Impugned Order”) dated
06.01.2025 received on 07.01.2025 by email passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi
(“Adjudicating Authority”) in Original Complaint No.
2400/2024 (“OC”) in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022
(“ECIR”) pursuant to which, the Respondent passed a
Provisional Attachment Order 12/2024 dated 29.07.2024
(“PAO”) to attach the Appellant’s bank balance of ₹2.70 Crore
as “Direct PoC” [Page 2 of the OC] that the Appellant has in
fact obtained in the usual course of its business and cannot be
 attributable to or have its origin from or in relation to TET
2014.
2. The Respondent attached the following movable property
erroneously categorising it as direct proceeds of crime:

A/c Holder Bank Account Balance

Provisionally
attached
M/s Leaps and 031705002845 2.70 Crores
Bounds Pvt. Ltd. ICICI Bank

3. That the contents of the captioned appeal including the

grounds are being relied upon and be read as part and parcel
of the present Application.
4. That present Application is being filed seeking exemption from
filing a certified copy of the impugned Order. It is submitted
that in view of the nature of the relief sought, there is any
urgency in the present matter. Additionally, the Appellant also
seeks exemption from filing clear/ legible copies of other
annexures accompanying the Appeal.
5. That the Appellant undertakes to file certified/clear/legible
copies of the annexures at the earliest opportunity as and
when called upon by this Hon’ble Court.
6. That grave prejudice shall be caused to the Appellant if the
present Application is not allowed.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,

it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

a. Allow the present Application and list the accompanying

Appeal at the earliest possible date; and
 b. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

APPELLANT
THROUGH

VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com

Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA NO. 2024 IN
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO. 2400 of 2024 IN
IN PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NO. 12/2024 DATED
29.07.2024
IN ECIR NO. KLZO-II/19/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S LEAPS AND BOUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED
…APPELLANT
VERSUS

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

…RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING

THE ACCOMPANYING APPEAL WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHIOWETH:

1. The present Appeal is being filed under Section 26 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against
the Judgment and Final Order (“Impugned Order”) dated
06.01.2025 received on 07.01.2025 by email passed by the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002, New Delhi
(“Adjudicating Authority”) in Original Complaint No.
2400/2024 (“OC”) in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022
(“ECIR”) pursuant to which, the Respondent passed a
Provisional Attachment Order 12/2024 dated 29.07.2024
(“PAO”) to attach the Appellant’s bank balance of ₹2.70 Crore
as “Direct PoC” [Page 2 of the OC] that the Appellant has in
fact obtained in the usual course of its business and cannot be
 attributable to or have its origin from or in relation to TET
2014.
2. The Respondent attached the following movable property
erroneously categorising it as direct proceeds of crime:

A/c Holder Bank Account Balance

Provisionally
attached
M/s Leaps and 031705002845 6.70 Crores
Bounds Pvt. Ltd. ICICI Bank

3. That the contents of the captioned appeal including the

grounds are being relied upon and be read as part and parcel
of the present Application.
4. That the present application is being filed seeking a
condonation of delay of [____] days in filing the captioned
appeal against the Impugned Order.
5. That due to the voluminous nature of the case record, it has
taken considerable time to prepare the Appeal. Further, the
Appellant is a resident of Kolkata and the affidavits and
Vakalatnama were sent to Delhi via courier which has led to
unfortunate delay in timely filing the present Appeal.
6. That the present application is bona fide and in the interest of
justice. Grave prejudice will be caused if the present
application is not allowed.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated

hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:
a. Allow the present Application and subsequently condone the
delay of [_____] days in the filing of the captioned appeal; and
 b. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case
APPELLANT
THROUGH

VANYA CHHABRA
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
LGF-IV, F-17, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
+ 91 9999890484
advocatevanya@gmail.com

Date: ___.02.2024
Place: New Delhi
[Vakalatnama and Board Resolution]
[Proof of Payment]