Prefatory Note
This analysis focuses on the ruling delivered by the Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA (Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators) (‘Tribunal’) in New Delhi in the case of Ms. Susila Ramaswamy v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement[i], dated 13.08.2024. The central issue in this case revolves around the confiscation of foreign currency deposited in the Appellant’s Indian bank accounts. The Tribunal examined whether the discharge of the main accused in prosecution proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (‘FERA’) had any binding effect on the adjudication proceedings against the Appellant under the same Act.
Brief Facts
Prosecution proceedings were initiated against an individual, ‘S’, for alleged violations of FERA. During the investigation, the Appellant was also identified as an accused. Although ‘S’ was discharged in the prosecution proceedings, the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) alleged that the Appellant had received foreign currency, which was deposited into various accounts in Indian banks. These accounts, opened in the Appellant’s name, were purportedly for the benefit of ‘S’.
The ED’s investigation revealed that the Appellant was not known to the business entities and individuals in the UAE, as she had claimed. Furthermore, the ED alleged that the Appellant lacked the financial resources to remit the said amounts, suggesting the funds did not belong to her. Instead, most of the funds, converted into rupee deposits, were siphoned off as loans and advances to companies for the benefit of ‘S’.
Based on these findings, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order confiscating the funds and transferring them to the credit of the Government of India under s. 63 of the FERA. The Appellant appealed, arguing that since ‘S’ had been discharged in prosecution proceedings and she had not been charged, the confiscation was unjust.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proceedings against ‘S’ were independent of the adjudication proceedings against the Appellant. The Tribunal noted that, as established in Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. v. ED & Ors.[ii] and Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.[iii], the prosecution and adjudication under FERA are separate and distinct processes. Consequently, the discharge of ‘S’ had no bearing on the adjudication against the Appellant.
The Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority had thoroughly analysed the evidence, which exposed inconsistencies in the Appellant’s claims. No credible evidence showed that the funds in the Appellant’s accounts belonged to her or were derived from her alleged business activities in Singapore and Dubai. It was determined that the Appellant had merely lent her name for the benefit of ‘S’. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation order, finding no reason to intervene.
Our Analysis
This ruling highlights the independence of adjudication and prosecution proceedings under the FERA framework. The jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank (supra) and Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) clarifies that the outcome of one proceeding does not necessarily influence the other. This separation allows the confiscation of assets and penal actions to proceed independently of criminal prosecution, provided there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations.
In this case, the Tribunal’s decision rested on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, which contradicted the Appellant’s assertions. Conflicting statements from the Appellant and her husband regarding the ownership of the funds, along with findings from the Malaysian Inland Revenue Board, indicated that neither the Appellant nor her husband had the financial means to remit the disputed amounts.
The Tribunal rightly emphasised the lack of credible documentation to substantiate the Appellant’s alleged business dealings in Singapore and Dubai, further weakening her defense. Moreover, it commended the Adjudicating Authority’s adherence to principles of natural justice, noting that the Appellant was given ample opportunity to be heard and cross-examine witnesses, thereby ensuring a fair process.
The Tribunal’s reliance on unimpeachable evidence, including statements recorded under s. 40 of the FERA and a detailed documentary analysis solidified the conclusion that the Appellant was a mere front for ‘S’.
In summary, the Tribunal’s decision reaffirms the principle that adjudication under FERA is not contingent on the outcome of related prosecution proceedings. This ruling demonstrates the importance of maintaining the distinction between adjudication and prosecution to ensure that the complexities of criminal proceedings do not unduly impede the enforcement of foreign exchange regulations and the confiscation of assets. The dismissal of the appeal strengthens the authority of adjudicating bodies to act independently based on the merits of the evidence presented.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 165 taxmann.com 837 (SAFEMA - New Delhi).
[ii] (2006) 4 SCC 278.
[iii] (2011) 2 SCC 581.
Authored by Sanyam Aggarwal, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
Comments