Bengaluru, Oct 16 (IANS) A Special Court in Bengaluru has sentenced retired Excise Guard and in-charge Sub-Inspector M. Ramachandra to five years of rigorous imprisonment and his daughter, R. Yurekha, to three years in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The court also ordered the confiscation of five immovable properties to the Central government, the official statement said on Friday.

The verdict was pronounced on October 14 by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48), in Special Criminal Case No. 357/2016, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Bengaluru Zonal Office.

The court imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on Ramachandra and Rs 3 lakh on Yurekha. It ordered the confiscation of five properties under Section 8(5) of the PMLA. Observing that the offence affected society at large, the court did not order separate compensation.

The case originated in a disproportionate assets investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police. An FIR was registered on July 7, 2009, under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The check period covered July 1, 1977, to July 8, 2009.

The ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on October 26, 2009, and initiated a money laundering investigation. In March 2016, it provisionally attached eight properties valued at about Rs 1.09 crore. It filed its prosecution complaint in June 2016, leading to PMLA proceedings.

The conviction follows an earlier judgment in the underlying corruption case. On November 8, 2024, the trial court in Special Criminal Case convicted Ramachandra under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50 lakh. His disproportionate assets were assessed at Rs 42,48,188.50, reported in the case record as 97.75 per cent of his known income.

The ED’s investigation found that Ramachandra had misused his position in the Excise Department to accumulate assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The investigation traced unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts held by him and his family members, as well as deposits into Kwality Wine Centre, a liquor business owned by Yurekha.

According to the investigation, cash deposits at the liquor shop rose from Rs 70,000 in 2001-02 to Rs 83.9 lakh in 2008-09. The funds were allegedly used to acquire immovable properties.

The investigation also found that Ramachandra had used his official position to facilitate a liquor licence in his daughter’s name. The licence was transferred to Yurekha in 2001, when she was still in college. A fee of Rs 4.5 lakh and rent of Rs 50,000 were reportedly paid, with the rent said to have been paid by her grandmother. However, no supporting records were found.

Yurekha declared the liquor shop’s income in her income tax returns, presenting the funds as business earnings. She purchased land in Hunsur in 2007. The court treated this land as proceeds of crime in light of the finding in the underlying corruption case that Ramachandra had funded the liquor licence.

However, a site in Bengaluru’s Yelahanka locality, purchased using the liquor shop’s income, was excluded from the properties ordered to be confiscated.

The court held that the prosecution had proved the money laundering charges against both accused under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. It applied the presumption under Section 24 of the Act, finding that the accused had failed to rebut it with evidence.

Their explanations about the sources of funds used to acquire properties were unsupported by documents. These included claims that their mother had financed construction in Vijayanagar and that Sharada had purchased certain sites.

Yurekha was found to have knowingly assisted in holding property acquired with the proceeds of crime in her name.

While deciding sentences, the court considered the offence a white-collar economic crime with significant social impact. It also took into account Ramachandra’s age of around 72 and Yurekha’s family circumstances as mitigating factors before imposing the sentences.

The court ordered five immovable properties to be confiscated under Section 8(5) of the PMLA.

–IANS

mka/dpb