- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
PMLA Court Rejects Discharge Plea Of International Rising Owner In Rs.1,478 Crore Fraud
PMLA Court Rejects Discharge Plea Of International Rising Owner In Rs.1,478 Crore Fraud
The judge questioned what action Kritika Dahal took on knowing the export consignment was over-valued
A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court, while observing that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, has disallowed her discharge plea.
Kritika Dahal, 40, owner of International Rising Ltd was suspected in a Rs.1,478-crore money laundering case related to Rajeshwar Exports Pvt Ltd.
The Special Judge AC Daga rejected Dahal's claim that she did not manage the company’s day-to-day activities. He held that if she had no role in the affairs of the Hong Kong-based company, what action she took on knowing the export consignment was highly over-valued, and the amount was credited into the company’s account from India.
He added that keeping quiet about the illegal activities reflected that she consented to it and was involved. The intention of infringing the valuation of the consignment was to transfer the amount, generated out of criminal activities, as was alleged in the FIR.
The prosecution submitted that in 2016, an FIR was registered at NM Joshi Marg police station for cheating. Based on that, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a money laundering case.
The ED alleged that in July 2014, businessman Ritesh Jain purchased Rajeshwar Exports, which was dealing with the export of diamonds and other precious stones. The export-import was done from Hong Kong.
The funds were deposited in the accounts of Unique Trading Co and Macquaire Multitrade Pvt Ltd, which were used for effecting illegal transactions, ultimately routed to Rajeshwar Exports.
In 2017, three live import consignments of the company sent by International Rising were intercepted at the Special Economic Zone in Surat, Gujarat.
The investigating agency further stated that while the declared value of the consignment was Rs.15.95 crore, as per the government-approved valuer, it was only Rs.1.64 crore. The outward remittance of Rs.746.42 crore from Rajeshwar Exports was made to International Rising against the alleged import of over-valued diamonds and gold.
The remittances were mainly done to International Rising, of which Dahal was the director, holding 99.999 percent shares.
However, seeking discharge, Dahal's lawyer contended that she was a dummy director, handling the work in good faith and was not involved in any criminal conspiracy.
The lawyer defended that the company exported diamonds and jewelry to Rajeshwar Exports, which were being purchased from the local market in Hong Kong. While the valuation was done on Jain's instructions, the documentation was handled by the local company secretary of Hong Kong.
He added that there was no import activity of International Rising and Jain oversaw procurement and valuation.