SAFEMA Tribunal Confirms ₹50 Lakh ED Attachment In Syndicate Bank Bribery Case Linked To Former CMD

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA on 12 March held that the provisional attachment of Rs. 50 lakh recovered from the close relatives of Syndicate Bank's former CMD constitutes proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A Bench comprising Members Balesh Kumar and Rajesh Malhotra allowed the appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority, which had earlier declined to confirm the provisional attachment of Rs. 50 lakh seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Tribunal observed:

“The registration of FIR and the filing of charge-sheet is a strong prima facie material to raise reason to believe for initiating the attachment proceedings under PMLA.”

The case arose from a CBI investigation into alleged corruption involving Sudhir Kumar Jain, the then Chairman and Managing Director of Syndicate Bank. Jain was accused of granting undue favours in loan sanctions in exchange for illegal gratification. It was alleged that Jain demanded Rs. 50 lakh from Neeraj Singhal of Bhushan Steel Ltd to avoid declaring the company's loan account as a Non-Performing Asset.

The bribe amount was reportedly routed through intermediaries and delivered to Jain's close relatives, Vineet Godha and Puneet Godha, from whose possession Rs. 50 lakh was recovered during a trap operation on 1 August 2014. Based on this predicate offence, the ED registered a case under the PMLA and issued a provisional attachment order attaching the recovered cash.

The Adjudicating Authority had refused to confirm the attachment, prompting the ED to file the appeal. Before the Tribunal, the ED argued that a prima facie case existed against the accused persons and that Rs. 50 lakh recovered constituted proceeds of crime which ought to be attached pending conclusion of the PMLA trial.

The accused persons contended that “there is nothing on record to show that the Rs. 50 lakh constituted proceeds of crime” and that the ED had failed to demonstrate how non-attachment of the amount would frustrate proceedings under the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the CBI had already registered an FIR, filed a charge sheet, and framed charges against the accused, observing that this indicated a “strong prima facie case” against them. It further stated:

“The above observations in the concluding para of the impugned order is apparently false and incorrect, seeing the fact that charges are already framed against the respondents as there was a prima facie case against them in the charge sheet case filed by CBI.”

Rejecting the defence raised by the accused, the Tribunal emphasised that such defences must be established during trial. It observed:

“Simply because the seized currency of Rs. 50 Lacs is already in the custody of trial court conducting the trial of CBI chargesheet case is no ground to restrain respondent ED from proceeding with the attachment proceedings qua the said amount.”

The Tribunal clarified that attachment under the PMLA is an interim measure to protect the property and its observations would not prejudice the rights of any party in the ongoing criminal trial.

Accordingly, it set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority, and confirmed the provisional attachment of Rs. 50 lakh.

For Appellant: Advocate Natasha Garg

For Respondents: Advocates Swetab Kumar, Rahul Kaul, Lakshya Parasher and Geetansh Bharti