Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 3, 4, 44 and 45 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 4.3, 406, 418, 420 – Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 – s. 66D – Black Money Act – s. 4 – Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – s. 37 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 133(6) – Petitioner during the pandemic did the crowdfunding campaign using an online crowdfunding platform “Ketto” – Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated inquiry under FEMA – Also, a complaint was lodged by a person (private complainant) in Ghaziabad for the offences u/ss. 403, 406, 418, 420 of IPC, s. 66D of IT Act and s. 4 of the Black Money Act – In the meantime the Mumbai Zonal Office of the ED issued notice to the petitioner seeking response relating to certain documents and the petitioner in response to that complied with the notice – Thereafter, the Delhi Zonal Office of the ED lodged a complaint before the Special Judge at Ghaziabad citing that the complaint filed by the private complainant – After that the provisional order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner located at Navi Mumbai was passed by the ED – Thereafter, the Special Judge, Ghaziabad took cognizance of the complaint lodged by the ED (the respondent) and summoned the petitioner for appearance – Aggrieved by the order of summoning the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court pleading that the Special Judge Ghaziabad has no territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offence – Held: Acquisition of the proceeds of crime has taken place in the virtual world, the places from where online transfers of money took place, are known only to the petitioner or their Bankers – The question of territorial jurisdiction in the instant case requires an enquiry into a question of fact as to the place where the alleged proceeds of crime were (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii) acquired; or (iv) used – This question of fact will depend upon the evidence that unfolds before the Trial Court – The issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence – Petitioner given liberty to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court.

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 44 – Jurisdiction of Special Court to try scheduled offences – Held: A combined reading of Section 44 of the PMLA and the provisions of Sections 177 to 184 of the Cr.P.C. will make it clear that in view of the specific mandate of clauses (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section 44, it is the Special Court constituted under the PMLA that would have jurisdiction to try even the scheduled offence – Even if the scheduled offence is taken cognizance of by any other Court, that Court shall commit the same, on an application by the concerned authority, to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering.