The Kerala High Court has rejected a petition from a 22-year-old man seeking to unfreeze his Federal Bank account after determining that the account was operated as a money mule to channel over Rs 50 lakh within approximately 15 days.
Police Investigation And Strict Judicial Warning
Justice M A Abdul Hakhim directed law enforcement authorities to register a First Information Report against the account holder under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In the August 17 ruling, the court also issued a stern rebuke to the petitioner’s legal team for allowing false statements in judicial filings. The bench emphasized that advocates serve as officers of the court and must not permit litigants to compromise the judicial process by submitting affidavits known to contain untruthful assertions.
Abrupt Surge In Inactive Account Raises Alarm
According to court filings, the man opened the Federal Bank account in January 2023, where it remained largely dormant for months. Account activity surged unexpectedly on May 15, 2023, with more than Rs 50 lakh moving through the account over a two-week span.
The entire sum credited to the account was subsequently withdrawn, leaving a credit balance of just Rs 1 by June 5, 2023. Following these transactions, Federal Bank received five separate directives from law enforcement agencies to freeze or place a debit freeze on the account for amounts totaling Rs 21 lakh due to ongoing criminal inquiries.
Court Rejects Claims Of Legitimate Business Revenue
To justify the transactions, the petitioner claimed to be a working partner in two commercial ventures—Ripi Foods, a wholesale dry fruits business, and Nipolta Media, an LED screen and media firm. He stated that he received monthly salaries of Rs 35,000 and Rs 40,000 respectively from these businesses, alongside profit distributions and occasional funds sent by his father from the Gulf.
Defense counsel requested that the court permit account operations while keeping a lien of Rs 21 lakh intact for law enforcement. However, the High Court observed that the petitioner failed to offer any credible explanation for the sudden inflow of large sums, concluding that the documentary evidence presented to the court proved the claims were entirely false.
