Mumbai: The special PMLA court has refused to discharge 43 year old Chartered accountant Anand Thakur, one of the directors of Monarch Universal Life-scapes Pvt (MULP). Ltd, in 326.78 crores money laundering case, observing that he cannot run away from his responsibilities as one of the directors even though his shareholding was just 5% in the company.
Anand is one of the directors and brother of MULP along with his two brothers Gopal and Hasmukh. Anand while seeking discharge claimed that he was made shareholder and also director of the company only to use his qualification as face of the company in order to enhance the profile of the company. The shareholding of the applicant was reduced from 25% to 5% in the said company.
Besides he claimed that he was to see issues of taxation regarding the company and guide the staff for that purpose. However, he was never involved with his brothers in any kind of financial deals. Besides, he claimed that he never handled any tax matters related to either MULP or any other subordinate company and company taxation balancesheet; audit was carried out by private Chartered Accountant Firm.
He further alleged that he had in fact given loan of Rs.1.10 Crores to MULP against which he held 5% shares in the company so that in future, he could recover his money back.
The ED prosecutor Kavita Patil on the other hand had claimed that Applicant was in-charge and liable for the conduct of the business of the company during the period of contravention. ‘The applicant being a qualified FCA, has looked after all the taxation related matters. He was the party to all transactions in the accounts of the group concerns that lead to the generation/transfer/ placement and parking of proceeds of crime,’ the prosecution argued.
The special judge AC Daga, however, referred to several statements including that of Gopal, one of the employees Avdesh Jha to consider Anand’s role. The court noted that witnesses had claimed that all the decisions of the company were taken collectively by all the directors after consultation.
Based on these statement the court noted that Anand was engaged in the taxation related matters of the company and was looking after day to day activities relating to the taxation. “A person who is directing or supervising the work of taxation has definitely to deal with the account without which he cannot give his opinion or cannot conclude regarding the policy of taxation. For minimizing, the taxation of the company account has to be prepared properly, and therefore, directly or indirectly it was the role of applicant to deal with the accounts of the company, though external Chartered Accountant was appointed for the purpose of audit of the accounts,” the court observed adding that “the applicant cannot run away from his collective responsibility and liabilities being partners/directors though to the extent of 5% of shares of MULP.”
Refusing to discharge Anand, the court said, “As the applicant being a qualified Chartered Accountant and looking after the taxation related matters and was also looking after the accounts and taking decision in the policy of the company, therefore, prima-facie he is involved in generation/transfer/placement and parking the proceeds of crime. Therefore, the applicant/accused prima-facie appears to be involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.”
