High Court refuses to interfere with ED’s order

The police arrested Dr Ganesan on July 14, 2013. The ED entered into the fray since the offences under Transplantation of Human Organs Act were scheduled offences covered by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). After recording the statements of key persons and director of Vinayaka Mission Hospital in Salem, the ED ordered the attachment of property of Dr Ganesan.

Assailing the attachment on the ground that no final report was filed in the case and since the LIC Housing Finance Limited has 60 per cent stake in the property towards a mortgage loan obtained by him, the property cannot be treated as the proceeds of a crime, Dr Ganesan sought to quash the provisional order of attachment.

Rejecting their plea, Justice V. Ramasubramanian directed the petitioners, LIC Housing Finance Limited, and other interested parties to appear before the ED’s adjudicating authority and submit their reply as well as evidence regarding the factual details.

Thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall record a finding (whether the property involved in money laundering or not) in terms of section 8 (2) of the Act, the judge added.

The judge said Thirumal’s contention was incorrect: the adjudicating authority was empowered to record a finding that all or any of the properties were not involved in money laundering. Once such a finding was recorded, the provisional order of attachment passed would automatically lapse.