Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could direct execution of its earlier order by transmitting it to the civil court having local jurisdiction, and whether the appellants were entitled to possession of the properties identified in the execution proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that its earlier final order had already released the attached properties in favour of the appellants and that the respondent's challenge had been dismissed by the High Court. It further noted that the properties covered by the execution proceedings were situated within the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Court at Raigad-Alibag. Relying on the execution power under Section 35 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Tribunal treated the order as executable as a decree of a civil court and considered transmission to the competent local civil court to be the proper course for enforcement.

Outcome: The Registry was directed to transmit the order along with the original record to the District and Sessions Court, Raigad-Alibag, for execution, and the matter was listed for further proceedings on the remaining issues arising out of the execution petition.

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order permitting retention and continued freezing of properties was vitiated for want of independent findings and for not addressing the appellants' objections on merits. (ii) Whether retention of seized and frozen properties could be sustained merely because the investigation was ongoing, without the finding required under the statutory scheme that the properties were involved in money-laundering.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order permitting retention and continued freezing of properties was vitiated for want of independent findings and for not addressing the appellants' objections on merits.

Analysis: The order under challenge was found to contain a long narration of the complaint, allegations, replies and rejoinders, but no real adjudicatory reasoning on the rival contentions. The only operative observations were treated as omnibus and unsupported by a clear application of mind. The order did not contain proper findings on the objections raised by the appellants, including the challenge based on the statutory requirements governing seizure, retention and adjudication.

Conclusion: The order suffered from lack of independent reasoning and could not be sustained as a proper adjudicatory determination.

Issue (ii): Whether retention of seized and frozen properties could be sustained merely because the investigation was ongoing, without the finding required under the statutory scheme that the properties were involved in money-laundering.

Analysis: The statutory framework requires the Adjudicating Authority, after considering the reply and relevant material, to record a finding on whether the properties are involved in money-laundering. The Tribunal held that continuation of retention could not rest solely or primarily on the fact that the investigation was still in progress. Since the impugned order did not record the required reasoned finding on the involvement of the properties in money-laundering, the statutory test was not met.

Conclusion: The order could not be sustained on the basis of ongoing investigation alone, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with a direction to pass a detailed speaking order after considering the parties' rival submissions and the relevant material, while maintaining status quo in the meantime.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order under the PMLA permitting retention or freezing of property must contain independent, reasoned findings on the statutory issue whether the property is involved in money-laundering, and cannot be upheld merely because investigation is continuing.

Issues: (i) Whether a property acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached as property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime are unavailable; (ii) Whether disclosure of the source of funds for an asset defeats attachment as property of equivalent value; (iii) Whether attachment of a jointly held property impermissibly reaches the non-accused spouse's share.

Issue (i): Whether a property acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached as property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime are unavailable.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 encompasses not only property derived or obtained from criminal activity, but also the value of such property. The expression concerning the value of such property permits attachment of an untainted asset of equivalent value where the actual proceeds have been siphoned off, vanished, or cannot be traced. This alternative category is not confined to assets acquired after the offence.

Conclusion: A pre-offence property may be attached as property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether disclosure of the source of funds for an asset defeats attachment as property of equivalent value.

Analysis: Proof of a legitimate source is relevant where an asset is alleged to be directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity. It does not displace attachment where the asset is proceeded against solely as an equivalent-value asset in substitution for untraceable proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Disclosure of the source of purchase does not defeat an attachment made for equivalent value. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether attachment of a jointly held property impermissibly reaches the non-accused spouse's share.

Analysis: The attachment was restricted to the quantified value of proceeds attributable to the appellant and was materially below the current value of the jointly held property. It therefore did not extend to the spouse's half share.

Conclusion: The restricted attachment does not encroach upon the non-accused spouse's share. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed attachment validly operates as an equivalent-value measure limited to the quantified proceeds attributable to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where actual proceeds of crime are unavailable, Section 2(1)(u) permits attachment of any asset of equivalent value held by the accused, including an asset acquired before the scheduled offence, subject to the limit of the illicit gain.

Issues: Whether the retention, freezing and seizure of movable properties and bank accounts were sustainable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the appellants had shown lawful source of funds to displace the allegations that the assets represented proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The material on record, including the forensic audit and investigation findings, showed a money trail from the company's funds to fictitious vendors and then to the appellants, their relatives and entities controlled by them. The explanation of consultancy income, salary and rental receipts was found unsubstantiated, with no reliable documentary proof of genuine services, appointment details, rent documentation or other evidence of lawful acquisition. In view of the allegations of kickbacks, manipulation of accounts and diversion of funds, the burden on the appellants to explain the source of assets was not discharged.

Conclusion: The freezing and seizure of the movable properties were upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation establishes a prima facie money trail linking assets to diverted company funds, and the claimant fails to prove a lawful source of acquisition, retention of the properties as proceeds of crime is justified under the PMLA.

Issues: (i) Whether the 2009 amendment inserting sections 7 to 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be applied retrospectively to properties acquired earlier; (ii) whether prior permission or intimation from the department was obtained for acquiring the immovable properties; (iii) whether attachment by the Enforcement Directorate was invalid because the properties had already been seized by the police or were under attachment in the criminal case; (iv) whether the appellants had lawful sources of income to acquire the immovable properties; (v) whether the properties covered by the will deed belonged to Killi Raghuramudu and were not liable to attachment; and (vi) whether the properties of the other appellants were liable to be released merely because they were not named as accused in the charge-sheet.

Issue (i): Whether the 2009 amendment inserting sections 7 to 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be applied retrospectively to properties acquired earlier?

Analysis: The relevant inquiry was held to be the date on which the property was projected or claimed as untainted and the act of money laundering occurred, not the date of the underlying scheduled offence. Money laundering was treated as an independent and continuing offence connected with the proceeds of crime, and the scheduled offence could pre-date the inclusion of the predicate offence in the schedule without defeating action under the 2002 Act.

Conclusion: The contention of retrospective inapplicability was rejected and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether prior permission or intimation from the department was obtained for acquiring the immovable properties?

Analysis: The Tribunal found no reliable proof that prior permission or proper intimation had been obtained. The materials relied upon by the appellants were not treated as sufficient to dislodge the investigation findings, and the burden remained on the appellant to explain lawful acquisition. The issue was also viewed as requiring proof in the predicate criminal trial.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether attachment by the Enforcement Directorate was invalid because the properties had already been seized by the police or were under attachment in the criminal case?

Analysis: Search and seizure under the criminal process and provisional attachment under the 2002 Act were held to operate in different fields. The Tribunal relied on the overriding effect of the 2002 Act and held that prior police seizure did not bar attachment by the Enforcement Directorate.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether the appellants had lawful sources of income to acquire the immovable properties?

Analysis: The claimed sources such as sale proceeds, rental income, agricultural income, commission income, provident fund withdrawals, and housing loans were found not to be satisfactorily substantiated. The Tribunal accepted the enforcement version that the appellants failed to explain the acquisition of disproportionate assets from known legal income.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (v): Whether the properties covered by the will deed belonged to Killi Raghuramudu and were not liable to attachment?

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the will deed did not establish a lawful independent source for the properties. On the materials considered, the claim that the properties genuinely belonged to Killi Raghuramudu was not accepted, and the surrounding circumstances indicated that the properties were traceable to the tainted funds linked with the main appellant.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (vi): Whether the properties of the other appellants were liable to be released merely because they were not named as accused in the charge-sheet?

Analysis: The Tribunal held that attachment under the 2002 Act is not confined to persons named as accused in the scheduled offence. Property in the hands of any person can be attached if it represents proceeds of crime and is involved in the money-laundering process.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all substantive grounds and the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent and continuing offence, and attachment may be made against proceeds of crime even where the scheduled offence predates the inclusion of the predicate offence in the schedule or the holder is not an accused in the predicate offence.

Issues: Whether immovable properties acquired prior to the alleged crime period could validly be provisionally attached as "proceeds of crime" on the basis of equivalent value when the tainted funds were not traceable in the hands of the accused.

Analysis: The definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was read as encompassing not only property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also the value of such property. The Tribunal held that where the actual tainted assets have been diverted, layered, dissipated, or are otherwise not available, attachment may extend to other property of equivalent value, even if such property was acquired before the commission of the scheduled offence, provided the statutory requirements for attachment under Section 5(1) are met. On the facts, the collected funds had been diverted and were not available, and the impugned properties were treated as equivalent-value assets liable to attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge to provisional attachment on the ground that the properties were purchased prior to the crime period failed; the attachment of equivalent-value properties was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, if the proceeds of crime are not traceable, property of equivalent value may be attached even when such property was acquired prior to the alleged offence, subject to the statutory conditions for provisional attachment.

Issues: (i) Whether the amount of Rs. 1 crore received by the appellant from the main accused was a genuine unsecured loan or constituted proceeds of crime linked to money laundering; (ii) Whether a property acquired prior to the commission of crime could be provisionally attached as property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime were not available.

Issue (i): Whether the amount of Rs. 1 crore received by the appellant from the main accused was a genuine unsecured loan or constituted proceeds of crime linked to money laundering.

Analysis: The appellant failed to produce any loan agreement or credible evidence of repayment. The receipt of Rs. 1 crore was admitted, but no material established that it was a legitimate loan transaction. On the record, the amount was treated as money received out of the proceeds of crime and the appellant's conduct was found consistent with laundering of tainted funds.

Conclusion: The amount was not accepted as a bona fide unsecured loan and was held to be proceeds of crime.

Issue (ii): Whether a property acquired prior to the commission of crime could be provisionally attached as property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime were not available.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the wider construction of the expression "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, relying on the principle that the expression includes not only property derived or obtained from criminal activity, but also the value of such property where the tainted asset is not traceable. It was held that equivalent-value attachment is permissible even against another property, including one acquired earlier, if the proceeds have vanished or been laundered and the statutory object would otherwise be frustrated.

Conclusion: Prior acquisition of the attached property did not bar provisional attachment for equivalent value.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment and its confirmation was rejected, and the attachment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proceeds of crime are not available or have been siphoned off, the enforcement authorities may proceed against property of equivalent value, and such attachment is not defeated merely because the substituted property was acquired before the commission of the predicate offence.

Issues: Whether the property provisionally attached and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was shown to have been acquired out of proceeds of crime and was liable to attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the investigation revealed misappropriation over the relevant period and that the appellants' statements reflected transfer of unexplained funds from the principal accused to Ravi Kumar for purchase of land and construction of flats. The plea that the land had been purchased in 2010, before the initially stated crime period, was rejected because the investigation established that the criminal activity in fact commenced from 2010. The appellants did not substantiate an independent source for the purchase price or for the cash deposits and construction activity, and the material on record was held sufficient to show a link between the attached property and the tainted funds.

Conclusion: The property was held to bear a sufficient nexus with proceeds of crime, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.

Issues: Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment of the appellants' properties under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 was justified on the ground that the properties were traceable to proceeds of crime and the appellants failed to establish acquisition from lawful sources.

Analysis: The attachment was sustained on the basis of statements recorded during investigation, the admitted history of land transactions originating from the company's assets, and the absence of reliable documentary proof showing payment of valid consideration by the appellants. The materials relied upon indicated that the properties were transferred through namesake or without consideration to divert or shield assets linked to the predicate offences. The explanatory source details furnished by the appellants were not supported by bank records, loan documents, or other credible proof, and were found inconsistent with the investigation record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed; the appellants did not dislodge the finding that the properties were liable to attachment as proceeds of crime.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed and the provisional attachment as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the investigation materials establish a traceable link between the attached property and proceeds of crime, the person in possession of the property must satisfactorily prove a lawful and independent source of acquisition failing which confirmation of provisional attachment is warranted.

Issues: (i) whether properties acquired before the alleged crime period could be attached as proceeds of crime when the actual tainted proceeds were not available, (ii) whether pendency of challenge to the predicate offence and related proceedings before the Supreme Court required interference with the attachment, and (iii) whether the absence of a separate naming of one appellant as an accused in the predicate offence invalidated the attachment.

Issue (i): Whether properties acquired before the alleged crime period could be attached as proceeds of crime when the actual tainted proceeds were not available.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as covering not only property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity, but also property of equivalent value where the tainted assets were unavailable, vanished, or had been siphoned off. The reasoning rejected a narrow reading that would confine attachment only to property purchased after the crime, since that would make the equivalent-value limb redundant and defeat the object of the statute. The attachment of untainted property was therefore permissible where it represented equivalent value to the unavailable proceeds.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether pendency of challenge to the predicate offence and related proceedings before the Supreme Court required interference with the attachment.

Analysis: The pendency of proceedings and any interim protection therein did not extinguish the predicate offence or nullify the foundation for action under the money-laundering law. Since the predicate offence and the proceedings under the statute had not been quashed, the provisional attachment was not liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The Tribunal nevertheless kept the order subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a separate naming of one appellant as an accused in the predicate offence invalidated the attachment.

Analysis: For provisional attachment, it was not necessary that the concerned person must be an accused in the predicate offence; it was sufficient if the person was involved in the activity or was in receipt of proceeds of crime. The fact that the appellant was named in the prosecution complaint under the money-laundering proceedings further negatived the challenge.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the attachment and found no ground to interfere, while making the disposal subject to the ultimate result of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tainted proceeds are unavailable, properties of equivalent value may be attached even if acquired before the crime period, and such attachment is not defeated merely because the predicate proceedings are under challenge or because the person is not separately named as an accused in the predicate offence.

Issues: (i) whether the provisional attachment could be interfered with on the basis of an interim order passed in the predicate criminal case; (ii) whether an order passed by a single member of the Adjudicating Authority was vitiated for want of proper coram; and (iii) whether property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value.

Issue (i): whether the provisional attachment could be interfered with on the basis of an interim order passed in the predicate criminal case.

Analysis: The interim order in the predicate proceedings did not stay the criminal case itself but merely directed adjournment of the trial. In the absence of quashing of the predicate offence, discharge, or acquittal, the provisional attachment made in accordance with the statutory procedure could not be disturbed on that ground.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the interim order failed.

Issue (ii): whether an order passed by a single member of the Adjudicating Authority was vitiated for want of proper coram.

Analysis: Divergent views of different High Courts on the competence of a single member of the Adjudicating Authority were noticed, and the issue was stated to be pending before the Supreme Court. Pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court, the appeal was disposed of with the clear understanding that the eventual decision of the Supreme Court would govern the matter.

Conclusion: The order was not set aside on this ground, and the issue was kept subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings.

Issue (iii): whether property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as having a wider statutory reach, including the value of any such property and property of equivalent value where the tainted property was not available. On that interpretation, attachment was not confined to property acquired after the offence, and earlier-acquired property could be proceeded against where the statutory conditions for equivalent-value attachment were met.

Conclusion: The objection to attachment of the prior-acquired property was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation were sustained, and the appeal was disposed of without interference, while remaining subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court on the coram issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime are unavailable, and such attachment is not defeated merely because the property was acquired before the scheduled offence.

Issues: Whether an immovable property confirmed as attached could be substituted with a demand draft or fixed deposit of equivalent value during pendency of the appeal.

Analysis: The Rules governing taking possession of attached properties were examined. The scheme of Rule 4 permits substitution only in relation to movable property in specified situations, while Rule 5 dealing with immovable property allows replacement only in limited contingencies expressly provided in sub-rules (5) and (6). The Tribunal held that there is no general power to substitute attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit outside those express situations, and that prior orders relied upon by the appellant did not justify a direction contrary to the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The request for substitution was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Substitution of attached immovable property can be allowed only where the governing rules expressly permit it, and no general equitable power exists to replace such property with a demand draft or fixed deposit.

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment was invalid because the scheduled offence provision was inserted after the loan sanction date; (ii) Whether properties acquired before the alleged fraud were liable to attachment; (iii) Whether settlement with the bank in Lok Adalat required release of the attached properties; (iv) Whether the property of a discharged co-appellant had to be released; and (v) Whether the properties of persons not named as accused in the predicate case were liable to be retained under attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment was invalid because the scheduled offence provision was inserted after the loan sanction date?

Analysis: The relevant date for the offence of money-laundering is when proceeds of crime are dealt with, projected as untainted, concealed, possessed, acquired, or used. The offence is independent of the date of the predicate offence and may be continuing in nature. The insertion of the scheduled offence provision after the loan sanction date did not defeat the attachment where the laundering activity continued thereafter.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether properties acquired before the alleged fraud were liable to attachment?

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime is wide enough to include not only property directly derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property. Properties acquired earlier are not immune if they represent the value of proceeds of crime or if the accused retained an interest when the criminal activity occurred. On the facts, attachment was only to the extent of equivalent value and was supported by the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether settlement with the bank in Lok Adalat required release of the attached properties?

Analysis: Settlement of the bank's claim did not conclude the predicate prosecution or the PMLA proceedings. Releasing the properties at that stage would frustrate the object of attachment and could render later confiscation proceedings ineffective if conviction followed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether the property of a discharged co-appellant had to be released?

Analysis: Discharge of one person in the predicate case does not by itself bar attachment where the property is alleged to represent proceeds of crime and the source of acquisition is unexplained. A plea of stridhan or independent ownership required proof and could not be accepted at the attachment stage on the existing material.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (v): Whether the properties of persons not named as accused in the predicate case were liable to be retained under attachment?

Analysis: The sweep of provisional attachment is not confined to accused persons in the scheduled offence. Any person in possession of or involved with proceeds of crime may face attachment if the property is connected with the laundering activity.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The attachment orders were sustained, and the appeals failed because the properties were found to be linked to proceeds of crime or their equivalent value, notwithstanding the dates of acquisition, settlement with the bank, discharge of one party, or the non-arraying of certain holders as accused.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment can extend to property or its equivalent value wherever it represents proceeds of crime, and the power is not confined to persons named as accused in the predicate offence; the material date is the laundering activity, not merely the date of the scheduled offence.

Issues: Whether Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 protected the corporate debtor and its property from continuation of attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 after approval of a resolution plan resulting in a change in management and control.

Analysis: The resolution plan had been approved and the corporate debtor had undergone a change in management to an unconnected resolution applicant. Section 32A was construed as creating immunity for the corporate debtor and its property in relation to offences committed before commencement of CIRP, while preserving liability only against persons involved in the offence and against property of persons other than the corporate debtor. The statutory scheme was read as giving a successful resolution applicant a clean slate and protecting value maximisation, so that enforcement action could not continue against the corporate debtor's assets once the statutory conditions were satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that the challenge to the creditor claim had attained finality and could not revive the basis for attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be continued against the corporate debtor's property after approval of the resolution plan, and the attachment order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor was entitled to the statutory protection available on successful resolution, and the enforcement attachment could not survive against its assets in the hands of the new management.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 results in a genuine change in control to an unconnected person, Section 32A bars enforcement action against the corporate debtor's property for pre-CIRP offences, while leaving liability to proceed against the responsible persons and other non-debtor property.

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment could be sustained even though the appellant was not named as an accused in the FIRs or charge sheets. (ii) Whether the material on record established that the appellant's NBFC licence and related funds were used in a lending model generating proceeds of crime and justifying attachment under the PMLA.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment could be sustained even though the appellant was not named as an accused in the FIRs or charge sheets.

Analysis: The attachment power under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not confined to property held by a person named as an accused in the scheduled offence. The decisive consideration is whether the person is in possession of proceeds of crime and whether the authorised officer has reason to believe, on the basis of material in possession, that such property is liable to be concealed, transferred or otherwise dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation. The absence of the appellant's name in the predicate FIRs did not, by itself, defeat attachment where the investigation disclosed its linkage with the lending operations and the funds under scrutiny.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record established that the appellant's NBFC licence and related funds were used in a lending model generating proceeds of crime and justifying attachment under the PMLA.

Analysis: The record disclosed a digital lending model in which fintech entities and the appellant operated through mobile applications, collected borrower data, advanced short-term loans, deducted substantial amounts upfront as processing or platform charges, and used coercive recovery methods. The Tribunal relied on the agreements and surrounding material to hold that core lending functions had effectively been outsourced in a manner inconsistent with RBI norms, while the appellant's licence facilitated the business model. The rise in loan volume and revenue, the use of fintech deposits as performance guarantees, and the alleged exploitation of borrowers supported the conclusion that the appellant had facilitated and benefited from activities generating proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the provisional attachment was upheld on the basis that the appellant's participation in the lending structure brought the attached assets within the ambit of proceeds of crime under the PMLA.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of provisional attachment under the PMLA, property may be attached from any person in possession of proceeds of crime, and the statute is not limited to property held by a person formally arraigned as an accused in the scheduled offence.

Issues: (i) whether the enhanced compensation received through the impugned transactions constituted money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether properties, including ancestral and pre-existing properties, could be provisionally attached as proceeds of crime or their equivalent value under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; and (iii) whether the preconditions for provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Issue (i): whether the enhanced compensation received through the impugned transactions constituted money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The compensation was disbursed after dismissal of the relevant SLPs and was obtained by relying on unrelated proceedings and incorrect use of judicial references. The receipt and retention of the amounts, coupled with their projection as lawful compensation, brought the matter within the statutory concept of money-laundering.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether properties, including ancestral and pre-existing properties, could be provisionally attached as proceeds of crime or their equivalent value under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as wide enough to include not only property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity, but also property of equivalent value where the tainted assets were not traceable or had been dissipated. On that basis, attachment of ancestral or earlier-acquired properties was held permissible when used only as equivalent-value assets. The challenge that such properties lacked nexus with the scheduled offence was rejected.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the preconditions for provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the statutory threshold is met where the authority has material showing possession of proceeds of crime and a likelihood that they may be concealed, transferred, or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation. The requirement does not depend on proof of imminent alienation already having occurred; a reasonable apprehension on the material was sufficient.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the provisional attachment and confirmed that the appeals disclosed no merit, leaving the impugned attachment order intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, proceeds of crime includes equivalent-value property when the tainted asset is not traceable, and provisional attachment is justified on material showing a likelihood of concealment or transfer frustrating confiscation.

Issues: Whether properties purchased during the crime period, though argued to have been acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence, could validly be treated as proceeds of crime and remain subject to provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The attachment challenge rested only on the contention that the subject properties were acquired before the commission of the offence and therefore could not fall within the expression "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The acquisition dates, however, showed that the properties were purchased during the crime period and around the time of the appellant's involvement in the scheduled offence. The appellant failed to establish a legitimate source for the purchases. The definition of "proceeds of crime" was applied broadly, consistent with the later judicial understanding that property of equivalent value may also be proceeded against where direct proceeds are not traceable. On the facts, the attachment was sustained.

Conclusion: The objection to provisional attachment was rejected, and the subject properties were held to be liable to attachment as proceeds of crime.

Ratio Decidendi: Property acquired during the crime period, without a proved lawful source and in the context of a scheduled offence, may be treated as proceeds of crime for the purpose of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether the amount attached in the appellant's hands was correctly quantified as proceeds of crime; (ii) whether the presumptions and procedure under the money-laundering provisions were wrongly applied; (iii) whether the order of attachment was vitiated for want of reasons to believe; and (iv) whether the impugned order was non-speaking and mechanical.

Issue (i): Whether the amount attached in the appellant's hands was correctly quantified as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The attachment was based on the funds advanced through the appellant's holding company, the direct payment made to Noida Development Authority, the suppression in the share purchase arrangement, and the deductions already given by the authority. The claimed deductions based on alleged later receipts, inter-company transactions, and amounts said to have been paid to third parties were found unsupported or irrelevant to the core computation. The Tribunal held that the respondents had made a fair quantification on the material before them and that the appellant's contrary calculations rested on misstatement of facts.

Conclusion: The quantification of proceeds of crime was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumptions and procedure under the money-laundering provisions were wrongly applied.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the statutory presumption and reverse burden operated once the authority had placed prima facie material showing involvement of the property in money laundering. The notice and adjudicatory process under the Act were found to have afforded opportunity to the appellant, and the material relied upon by the respondents was considered sufficient to sustain the attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the presumptive burden and adjudicatory procedure failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of attachment was vitiated for want of reasons to believe.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the provisional attachment order disclosed the basis for the belief that the property represented proceeds of crime and set out the figures and links relied upon by the authority. The objection that no reasons were recorded was rejected because the order, read with the material discussed, sufficiently disclosed the basis of action.

Conclusion: The objection that the attachment lacked reasons to believe was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned order was non-speaking and mechanical.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded detailed consideration of each contention and reasoned findings on the factual and legal questions raised. On that basis, it concluded that the order could not be characterised as non-speaking or mechanical.

Conclusion: The contention that the order was non-speaking was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The attachment and the confirmation order were sustained, and the appeal was held to be without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authority records prima facie material linking property to proceeds of crime and the attachment order discloses the basis for that belief, the statutory presumptions and provisional attachment under the money-laundering law will be sustained unless the appellant rebuts them with credible material.

Issues: Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties could be interfered with when the appellants failed to establish a lawful source of funds and a credible explanation for acquisition of the properties; and whether the appellants had rebutted the statutory presumption under the money-laundering law.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant was arrayed as an accused in the underlying investigation and that the attached properties were acquired during or around the relevant period without supporting documentary proof of independent income. The plea that the properties stood in the name of the wife and were acquired from agriculture income or salary contribution was found unsubstantiated, as no bank statements, tax returns, or other material were produced. In the absence of proof of source, the Tribunal applied the statutory presumption against the accused and held that the appellants had not discharged the reverse burden cast upon them. The Tribunal further held that the record did not show any reliable basis to dislodge the finding that the properties were liable to attachment as connected with proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confirmation of provisional attachment failed, and the properties remained liable to attachment.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the attachment order on the ground that the appellants did not rebut the statutory presumption or establish a lawful source for acquisition of the properties.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the money-laundering law, once material indicates involvement in the scheduled offence and acquisition of property without proved lawful source, the statutory presumption operates and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it with credible evidence.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation of attachment of the school building and the underlying land were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the property was not shown to be proceeds of crime and that the appellant had no complicity in the laundering activity.

Analysis: The attachment was sustained on the basis that the funds traced to the school building were substantially derived from donations made by the Islamic Research Foundation, which had been declared unlawful, and that the relevant activities fell within the scheduled offences under the money-laundering framework. The funds received by the associated trust were found to have been diverted into construction of the school building on land leased from the appellant. The Tribunal also relied on the timing and terms of the lease, the utilisation of the donated funds, and the material indicating that the appellant was not a bona fide stranger to the transaction chain. The appellant's reliance on the lease termination and the absence of a direct charge against him or the trust was held insufficient to displace the taint attached to the property.

Conclusion: The attachment of the property was upheld and the appellant's challenge was rejected.