Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation order were vitiated because the respondent relied upon a statement recorded under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and a diary alleged to be inadmissible; (ii) Whether the proceedings were invalid for non-compliance with Regulation 3 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013; (iii) Whether Section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permitted continuation of attachment against the appellants on the facts of the case; (iv) Whether the corporate and shareholder distinction barred attachment of the properties involved.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation order were vitiated because the respondent relied upon a statement recorded under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and a diary alleged to be inadmissible.

Analysis: The material showed that the statement of the witness under the Income-tax Act was not the sole basis for the attachment. The record contained summons issued to the witness, statements of several persons recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and other search material showing the flow of funds through multiple entities. The diary and the external statement were treated as corroborative, not as the only foundation for the action.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the attachment was not vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were invalid for non-compliance with Regulation 3 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the record showing that translated English copies of the statements had been supplied and that the persons concerned had given statements in a language they understood. The alleged breach was therefore found to be factually unsupported and only a technical objection.

Conclusion: The alleged violation of Regulation 3 was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permitted continuation of attachment against the appellants on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that provisional attachment under the Act is not confined only to the named accused in the scheduled offence. It can extend to any person involved in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime or who is shown to be a recipient of such proceeds. On the facts, the statements and bank trail indicated acquisition of properties through layered funds routed from shell entities and the appellants failed to explain the independent source of the money.

Conclusion: The statutory basis for continuing the attachment was upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the corporate and shareholder distinction barred attachment of the properties involved.

Analysis: The Tribunal found a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity, the layering of proceeds, and the acquisition of assets through entities and relatives. The facts did not justify treating the corporate form as insulating the properties from attachment, and the reliance on the doctrine distinguishing shareholder and company was held inapposite on the facts.

Conclusion: The corporate-law objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment was sustained because the evidence disclosed a sufficient money trail linking the properties to proceeds of crime and the appellants failed to displace that linkage.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be sustained against persons who are shown by material and money trail evidence to be recipients or beneficiaries of proceeds of crime, even if they are not the sole named accused in the scheduled offence.

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, finding the impugned properties to be proceeds of crime, is legally sustainable; (ii) Whether provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires the property to be in the hands of a person formally accused in the scheduled offence; (iii) Whether acquisition of property by way of loan repaid shortly after borrowing severs the link with proceeds of crime or precludes attachment; (iv) Whether the death of the principal accused and alleged abatement of criminal proceedings invalidates provisional attachment of properties derived from alleged proceeds.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, finding the impugned properties to be proceeds of crime, is legally sustainable.

Analysis: The materials include admissions under Section 50(2) of the Act, bank statements showing layering and unexplained credits, contemporaneous investigative findings linking funds collected through the fraudulent scheme to acquisition of immovable properties, and valuation evidence. The adjudicating authority recorded that the attached properties were derived from or represented value equivalent to proceeds of crime as defined in Section 2(1)(u). The repayment of a loan by cash deposits from undisclosed sources within a short period was treated as a layering mechanism indicating use of tainted funds for acquisition. The Tribunal examined these factual and documentary materials and found a plausible nexus between the proceeds of the scheduled offence and the properties.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order was upheld; the attached properties were held to be proceeds of crime.

Issue (ii): Whether provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires the property to be in the hands of a person formally accused in the scheduled offence.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that Section 5(1) extends to any person found to be in possession of proceeds of crime, not solely to those already named as accused in FIR/ECIR, relying on binding authority interpreting the scope of the provision. The authority discussed makes clear that provisional attachment can be directed at any person where material indicates possession of proceeds of crime and that such persons may subsequently be made parties to prosecution under Section 3 of the Act.

Conclusion: Provisional attachment under Section 5(1) does not require the person to be previously or presently named as an accused; attachment against a person in possession of proceeds of crime is permissible.

Issue (iii): Whether acquisition of property by way of loan repaid shortly after borrowing severs the link with proceeds of crime or precludes attachment.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined evidence that a loan was availed for purchase but was repaid within four months by cash deposits into the account without disclosure of legitimate source. The short repayment period, unexplained cash inflows, and corroborative admissions supported the finding that the loan arrangement was used to disguise the origin of criminal proceeds (a layering transaction). The adjudicating authority's reliance on those facts to treat repayment as indicative of tainted funds was sustained.

Conclusion: A loan-funded acquisition followed by rapid repayment from undisclosed cash sources did not break the nexus with proceeds of crime; attachment on that basis was justified.

Issue (iv): Whether the death of the principal accused and alleged abatement of criminal proceedings invalidates provisional attachment of properties derived from alleged proceeds.

Analysis: The record did not establish any order of abatement or final termination of criminal proceedings such that the basis for investigative and provisional measures ceased to exist. Moreover, statutory scheme permits attachment of properties in possession of persons who may be legal heirs or others holding proceeds; death of the principal accused does not automatically nullify a finding of proceeds or the authority to provisionally attach pending trial or further proceedings.

Conclusion: Death of the principal accused did not invalidate provisional attachment in the absence of an order terminating proceedings or other legal basis for abatement affecting the attachment.

Final Conclusion: The adjudicatory findings linking the impugned properties to proceeds of crime were supported by the material on record; the statutory framework permits provisional attachment against persons in possession of such property; none of the grounds raised by the appellants warranted interference with the confirmation of attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 authorises provisional attachment of property held by any person where material shows it to be proceeds of crime, and unexplained or proximate repayment of loans with funds from undisclosed sources can establish the requisite nexus to sustain such attachment.

Issues: Whether an immovable property acquired by the appellant prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be attached and confirmed under the second limb of the definition of "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (i.e., attachment of property of equivalent value when proceeds are not traceable).

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) is parsed into distinct limbs: (i) property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from a scheduled offence; (ii) the value of any such property, ordinarily understood as property of equivalent value where the proceeds are not traceable; and (iii) property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. The second limb permits attachment of untainted property of equivalent value when tainted property has been siphoned off or cannot be located, subject to assessment (even if tentative) of the value of illicit gains and protection of bona fide third-party interests. Where the record demonstrates that proceeds are not available or have been routed/vanished and the attachment is made under the second limb as an equivalent-value measure, interference is not warranted absent failure to meet the statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The attachment of the immovable property acquired prior to the scheduled offence was appropriately effected under the second limb of Section 2(1)(u) as property of equivalent value; no interference with the confirmed attachment order is warranted (decision adverse to the appellant).

Issues: (i) Whether a bona fide third-party secured creditor having a prior interest in attached properties can enforce its security despite attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the proper forum for adjudication of the bank's claim was the Appellate Tribunal or the Special Court.

Issue (i): Whether a bona fide third-party secured creditor having a prior interest in attached properties can enforce its security despite attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 does not defeat a lawful, bona fide third-party interest created for adequate consideration prior to the scheduled offence. Where the secured creditor's claim is prior in time and bona fide, the attachment may continue only to the extent of any value remaining after satisfaction of that prior charge. The secured creditor's enforcement right is not to be frustrated by the attachment.

Conclusion: The bank's prior secured interest was protected, and the attachment could not override its right to enforce security in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the proper forum for adjudication of the bank's claim was the Appellate Tribunal or the Special Court.

Analysis: Once the attachment order has attained finality, or where the criminal trial under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 has commenced, the claim of a person asserting a bona fide prior interest is to be inquired into and adjudicated by the Special Court. In that situation, the Appellate Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for granting substantive relief on the claim to the attached property.

Conclusion: The bank was required to approach the Special Court, and the Appellate Tribunal declined to grant relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable for substantive relief before the Appellate Tribunal in the prevailing stage of proceedings, and the bank was left to work out its remedies before the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide third-party secured creditor with a prior interest is not deprived of its enforcement rights by PMLA attachment, but once the attachment has attained finality or the trial has commenced, adjudication of such claim lies with the Special Court rather than the Appellate Tribunal.

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 08.04.2024 confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.11.2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the factual matrix including FIRs under IPC, UAPA and IT Act leading to an ECIR, seizure of documents from PFI premises identifying M/s Multiflor Builders Pvt. Ltd. (MBPL) as an entity alleged to be used to park and distribute funds; bank transaction history showing substantial credits from NRE accounts and transfers from MBPL to multiple individuals; failure of the appellants to produce timely and consistent share certificates evidencing genuine shareholding; absence of credible source of funds for alleged capital infusion by the appellants; lack of revenue operations in MBPL's records and absence of corroborative documentary evidence for the claimed buyer/seller transactions relied upon by appellants; and banking transactions between MBPL and entities controlled by PFI. The Tribunal found these materials sufficient to establish a link between MBPL and PFI and to treat the impugned transfers as proceeds of crime within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that documents relied upon by appellants (sale deeds, share certificates) suffered from material discrepancies and were not adequately countersigned or otherwise substantiated to rebut the respondents' case.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order is upheld and the appeals are dismissed; the order confirming attachment is sustainable under Section 26 and Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether the properties provisionally attached and confirmed are proceeds of crime or property equivalent in value such that confirmation of provisional attachment is sustainable; (ii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional attachment beyond 180 days is invalid by reason of Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned provisional attachment and its confirmation can be sustained by treating the attached properties as proceeds of crime or as property equivalent in value under the definition of "proceeds of crime".

Analysis: The definition of "proceeds of crime" contains distinct limbs covering (a) property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from scheduled offences, and (b) the value of any such property where the tainted property is not traceable (allowing attachment of property of equivalent value). The statutory language and authoritative decisions interpreting the definition permit attachment of property of equivalent value when proceeds are siphoned off or not traceable. Evidence tracing funds received by intermediary entities to the scheduled offence, contemporaneous payments to the appellant, farmers' statements disputing bona fides of transfers, bank remittances into the appellant's account, and the respondent's assessment of utilization and value were applied to determine the extent of proceeds in the appellant's hands. The valuation principle requires using fair market value on date of acquisition (Section 2(zb)), not current market value. The provisional attachment amount was not in excess of the assessed proceeds after accounting for legitimate payments to sellers.

Conclusion: The attachment and confirmation as to the properties are sustained; conclusion is in favour of the Respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether confirmation of the provisional attachment order dated 03.06.2021 by the Adjudicating Authority on 08.02.2022 was rendered invalid for being beyond the 180-day period prescribed by Section 5(3) of the Act.

Analysis: The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been judicially excluded for purposes of limitation and certain prescribed outer time limits by binding Supreme Court orders addressing the Covid-19 pandemic. The exclusion applies where a statutory time frame effectively operates as an outer limit for termination of proceedings. Section 5(3) prescribes cessation of provisional attachment after expiry of 180 days and functions as such an outer limit. Applying the exclusion for the Covid period yields that the confirmation fell within the permitted 180-day computation.

Conclusion: The confirmation order is not invalid on the ground of delay under Section 5(3); conclusion is in favour of the Respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the provisional attachment and its confirmation are upheld and the Adjudicating Authority's order remains operative.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of "proceeds of crime" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 comprises (i) property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from scheduled offences and (ii) the value of any such property permitting attachment of property equivalent in value when tainted assets are not traceable; valuation uses fair market value on date of acquisition; and the Covid-19 exclusion of limitation period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) applies in computing statutory outer time limits such as the 180-day period in Section 5(3).

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority violated principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing before confirming the provisional attachment; (ii) Whether immovable property acquired prior to commission of the predicate offence can be attached as "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (iii) Whether the undisputed retention by the appellants of Rs. 10,50,75,000 out of funds received amounts to proceeds of crime attracting provisional attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional attachment without providing the appellants an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The statutory timeline for finalizing the Adjudicating Authority's order and availability of virtual hearing were considered; correspondence requesting physical hearing was weighed against the availability of virtual hearing and the requirement that the authority conclude within statutory period. The record shows opportunities for participation were provided and not availed; change of venue within the authority's nationwide jurisdiction was examined in the context of procedural adequacy.

Conclusion: The non-attendance of the appellants did not amount to denial of hearing and there was no infringement of principles of natural justice in confirming the provisional attachment.

Issue (ii): Whether property acquired prior to the commission of the predicate offence can be attached under the definition of "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u).

Analysis: The definition of "proceeds of crime" was interpreted as comprising three limbs, including a limb permitting attachment of property equivalent in value where directly traceable proceeds are not available. Precedents explaining the concept of deemed tainted property and safeguards for bona fide third-party interests and the need to prevent evasion by siphoning off proceeds were applied to the statutory text and legislative purpose.

Conclusion: Property acquired prior to the predicate offence can be attached as property of equivalent value under Section 2(1)(u) when traceable proceeds are not available, subject to the statutory safeguards for bona fide third-party interests.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants' retention of Rs. 10,50,75,000 out of receipts linked to the predicate offence constitutes proceeds of crime justifying attachment.

Analysis: Evidence regarding receipt, partial repayment, absence of demonstrable legitimate utilization of the retained sum, and witness statements indicating non-return were considered; the applicability of the second limb of Section 2(1)(u) to attach equivalent value where proceeds are retained was applied.

Conclusion: The retained amount of Rs. 10,50,75,000 was held to be proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellants and sustained the provisional attachment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed and the confirmed provisional attachment stands, reflecting that (i) procedural opportunity to be heard was not denied, (ii) the second limb of Section 2(1)(u) permits attachment of property acquired prior to the predicate offence as property of equivalent value when proceeds are not otherwise available, and (iii) the retained sum was properly treated as proceeds of crime under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 encompasses (a) property directly or indirectly derived from the scheduled offence, (b) property of equivalent value where such proceeds are not traceable, and (c) property equivalent in value to proceeds taken or held outside the country; accordingly, attachment of property acquired prior to the offence is permissible under the second limb where traceable proceeds are unavailable, subject to statutory safeguards for bona fide third-party interests.

Issues: (i) Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offence; (ii) whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were unsupported by reason to believe under the Act; (iii) whether the appellants were entitled to benefit of alleged undisclosed income; (iv) whether the appellants discharged the burden under section 24 of the Act; and (v) whether property could be attached as equivalent value in the absence of direct proof of acquisition from proceeds of crime.

Issue: Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offence.

Analysis: The investigation into the scheduled offence is the responsibility of the police or the investigating agency for the predicate case. The Enforcement Directorate is not a supervisory agency for re-investigating that offence; its inquiry is confined to identifying prima facie material, the generation of proceeds of crime, layering or tracing of such proceeds, dissipation of the tainted assets, and the genuineness of claimants to attached properties.

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

Issue: Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were unsupported by reason to believe under the Act.

Analysis: The attachment was sustained on material showing large unexplained cash deposits, acquisition of properties in the names of family members, lack of credible source of funds, and the likelihood that the properties would be concealed or dealt with so as to frustrate proceedings. The statutory threshold of reason to believe was treated as satisfied on the material before the authority.

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

Issue: Whether the appellants were entitled to benefit of alleged undisclosed income.

Analysis: The claimed agricultural, dairy, and business income was found unsubstantiated by acceptable documentary support. The omission to disclose such income in returns and service-related declarations weighed against the appellants, and the plea was treated as an afterthought to explain the assets.

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

Issue: Whether the appellants discharged the burden under section 24 of the Act.

Analysis: In the face of the material collected during investigation, the appellants failed to provide a credible and documented explanation for the cash investments, the bank deposits, and the acquisition of movable and immovable properties. The burden under the Act was therefore not discharged.

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

Issue: Whether property could be attached as equivalent value in the absence of direct proof of acquisition from proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was applied to include not only property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property. On that basis, properties representing equivalent value could be proceeded against even where the exact tainted asset was not traceable, and the challenge to attachment on that ground was rejected.

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

Final Conclusion: The attachment was upheld and the appeals failed in entirety, with the Tribunal affirming that the properties were liable to be proceeded against under the money-laundering framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may be sustained on the basis of reason to believe founded on material indicating proceeds of crime, the burden shifts to the noticee to explain the source of the assets, and property of equivalent value is also liable where the tainted asset is not directly traceable.

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) requires correction/remand insofar as it misidentifies ownership and omits a specific order in respect of the property at serial no. 24 (Flat No.91, Gokul Building) held by the appellant, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a specific decision on that property.

Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal examined the impugned AA order confirming PAO No.03/2018 and found material ambiguities concerning the identification and treatment of two adjacent properties: serial no. 23 (flat in the name of M/s Rohan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) and serial no. 24 (flat transferred to the appellant on 01.11.2013). The Tribunal analysed the record and the AA's order paragraphs showing that the confirmation and conclusions referred expressly to serial no. 23 as standing in the name of D-12 in parts of the AA order, while serial no. 24 the property owned by the appellant was omitted from those operative findings despite being listed in the PAO. The Tribunal considered submissions on ownership, timing of acquisition relative to the predicate offences, the absence of direct money trail claimed by the appellant, and the ED's contentions regarding shareholdings and potential connections to proceeds. The Tribunal concluded that, although there was substantial material relied upon by ED concerning the broader fraud, the specific omission and inconsistent references in the AA's order created a jurisdictional/clerical ambiguity requiring the AA to pass a specific, reasoned order as to serial no. 24 rather than leaving the issue unresolved on appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to pass a specific, reasoned order regarding the property at serial no. 24 (Flat No.91, Gokul Building) and to resolve the identified ambiguity in the confirmation of the PAO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Issues: (i) Whether properties can be attached as equivalent value in the absence of direct proceeds of crime; (ii) Whether there was reason to believe for passing and confirming the provisional attachment; (iii) Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offences.

Issue (i): Whether properties can be attached as equivalent value in the absence of direct proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime includes not only property derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property. On that basis, properties not directly traceable to the tainted funds, including properties acquired earlier, may be proceeded against where the actual proceeds of crime cannot be traced and the statutory conditions for equivalent value attachment are satisfied.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether there was reason to believe for passing and confirming the provisional attachment.

Analysis: The material gathered in the investigation showed large-scale fraudulent borrowings, diversion of loan proceeds, outstanding liabilities treated as proceeds of crime, and the likelihood of concealment or dealing with the properties in a manner frustrating confiscation proceedings. The authority found that the statutory requirements for provisional attachment and its confirmation were met.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offences.

Analysis: The role of the Enforcement Directorate in a money-laundering inquiry is confined to examining the existence and trail of proceeds of crime, layering, dissipation, and the genuineness of claimants. It is not required to re-investigate or arrive at a fresh conclusion on the predicate offences, which remain for the police or CBI to investigate.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was upheld and the appeals failed, while protection was preserved for properties already mortgaged and auctioned by banks in the manner directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the actual tainted property cannot be traced, attachment may extend to equivalent value properties, and the Enforcement Directorate is not obliged to re-investigate the predicate offence while exercising powers under the money-laundering statute.

Issues: (i) Whether immovable property purchased prior to the predicate offence can be treated as proceeds of crime or be subject to attachment; (ii) Whether the appellant discharged the burden to prove the lawful source of funds for purchase of the attached property; (iii) Whether provisional attachment of property in the name of the appellant can be sustained for alleged criminal acts of his son.

Issue (i): Whether immovable property purchased prior to the predicate offence can be treated as proceeds of crime or be subject to attachment.

Analysis: The definition of "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u) contains multiple limbs, including property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity and the value of any such property to permit attachment of property of equivalent value where actual proceeds are not traceable. Judicial precedents cited establish that properties acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence may be attached as property of equivalent value when the tainted proceeds cannot be located.

Conclusion: Property purchased prior to the predicate offence is not a direct proceed of crime but can be attached as property of equivalent value where proceeds of crime are not traceable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant discharged the burden to prove the lawful source of funds for purchase of the attached property.

Analysis: Investigation summoned the alleged lenders and sought documents and bank records; none of the alleged lenders appeared and the appellant did not produce loan documents or bank evidence of repayment. Section 24 places the evidentiary burden on the person against whom attachment proceedings are instituted to prove the lawful source once the authority establishes a prima facie case.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to discharge the burden under Section 24 to prove lawful source of funds; therefore the attachment was sustainable on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether provisional attachment of property in the name of the appellant can be sustained for alleged criminal acts of his son.

Analysis: Evidence on record linked the appellant's son to the predicate offence and showed the son as recipient of proceeds; statements indicated the son's involvement in initiating purchase though consideration was paid by the appellant. In the absence of credible proof of independent lawful source for the appellant's property and given non-traceability of proceeds, provisional attachment of property in appellant's name as equivalent value was permissible.

Conclusion: Provisional attachment of the appellant's property in consequence of the son's alleged criminality is sustainable as property of equivalent value where the appellant failed to establish a lawful source.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional attachment is upheld, with the property characterized as attachable for equivalent value rather than direct proceeds of the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the expression "proceeds of crime" includes property directly or indirectly derived from scheduled offences and also the value of any such property, permitting attachment of property of equivalent value when tainted proceeds are not traceable; once a prima facie case is made, Section 24 requires the affected person to prove lawful source, failing which provisional attachment may be confirmed.

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in confirming provisional attachment of immovable and movable properties (including properties acquired prior to the scheduled offence) as proceeds of crime or property of equivalent value; (ii) Whether retention/seizure of documents and digital devices ought to be continued; (iii) Whether freezing of bank accounts not subsequently provisionally attached was justified.

Issue (i): Whether provisional attachment of properties (including those acquired prior to the scheduled offence) could be sustained as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Evidence from investigation included statements and transaction tracing showing large cash deposits and transfers into accounts of non-existent entities and attribution of instructions for deposits to the appellant. The definition of "proceeds of crime" under section 2(1)(u) PMLA includes (a) property derived from criminal activity and (b) the value of such property where proceeds are not traceable, thereby permitting attachment of property of equivalent value. Authorities and precedent interpreting the definition to permit attachment of property of equivalent value where proceeds have been laundered or are not traceable were applied.

Conclusion: The confirmation of provisional attachment of the properties is justified and is upheld; attachment of properties acquired prior to the scheduled offence is permissible as property of equivalent value where proceeds are not traceable.

Issue (ii): Whether continued retention of seized documents and digital devices was warranted.

Analysis: Seized documentary material in part was already released after taking copies; the investigative record and subsequent provisional attachments addressed the evidentiary need for many seized items. No continuing justification remained for retention of items already released or for those superseded by provisional attachment.

Conclusion: The earlier detention/retention of seized documents and digital devices does not survive to the extent already released; no interference is required for matters already dealt with by release and by subsequent provisional attachment.

Issue (iii): Whether freezing of bank accounts that were not provisionally attached should be sustained.

Analysis: The majority of frozen accounts were subsequently provisionally attached; two specified bank accounts were not provisionally attached and no further justification for their continued freezing was shown. Where provisional attachment was not effected, freezing cannot be sustained absent specific grounds or subsequent attachment.

Conclusion: Freezing of the two bank accounts not subsequently provisionally attached is unjustified and interference is warranted to lift the freezing in respect of those accounts; freezing upheld for accounts that were subsequently provisionally attached.

Final Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of provisional attachment is sustained based on the act of laundering and the availability of authority to attach property of equivalent value where proceeds are not traceable; retention of seized documents has been rendered largely moot by release of copies and by provisional attachments; limited relief is granted by directing release/unfreezing of specific bank accounts that were not provisionally attached.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of "proceeds of crime" in section 2(1)(u) PMLA encompasses both property derived from scheduled offences and the value of such property, permitting provisional attachment of property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds are laundered or not traceable, and provisional attachment of properties acquired prior to the offence is permissible under the second limb when proceeds are not available.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were denied valid service of notice and were consequently proceeded against ex parte; (ii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority had a valid reason to believe for confirmation of attachment; (iii) Whether the appellants established legitimate sources for purchase of the attached property and whether the attachment could be sustained in view of the plea that the scheduled offences were added later and the money-laundering charge was retrospective.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were denied valid service of notice and were consequently proceeded against ex parte

Analysis: The record showed that notice and the accompanying complaint were sent by speed post and delivery was confirmed. The file of the Adjudicating Authority also reflected prior intimation of service and later confirmation of delivery. The applicable procedure then in force permitted service in the manner prescribed under Order 5 of Schedule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and service by speed post was held to be valid. The appellants had actual awareness of the proceedings but chose not to appear.

Conclusion: The objection regarding non-service and ex parte disposal was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority had a valid reason to believe for confirmation of attachment

Analysis: The order and the surrounding record showed that the Adjudicating Authority acted on the materials placed by the Enforcement Directorate and the complaint accompanying the provisional attachment proceedings. In proceedings under section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Authority was not required to record reasons in the same manner as under section 5(1), and subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material before it was sufficient. The attachment proceedings were therefore not invalid merely because the reasons were drawn from the complaint and supporting materials.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence of independent reason to believe failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants established legitimate sources for purchase of the attached property and whether the attachment could be sustained in view of the plea that the scheduled offences were added later and the money-laundering charge was retrospective

Analysis: The documentary support for the claimed lawful sources was found inadequate and unreliable, including unregistered and unsupported transactions and an unproved bank loan narrative. The appellants did not satisfactorily discharge the burden of showing that the flat was acquired from untainted funds. On the retrospectivity plea, the governing principle applied was that money laundering is assessed with reference to the act of dealing with proceeds of crime, and continued possession or use of such proceeds after the relevant offence is scheduled attracts liability. The fact that the predicate offences were committed earlier did not defeat the proceedings where the alleged laundering continued thereafter.

Conclusion: The attachment of the property was upheld and the plea of retrospectivity was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was confirmed, the appellate challenge failed, and the attached property was allowed to remain under restraint pending completion of the prosecution and confiscation process.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, valid service by the prescribed mode, subjective satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority under section 8(1), and continued possession or dealing with proceeds of crime are sufficient to sustain attachment even if the predicate offences were scheduled later.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's assets as proceeds of crime was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The attachment was examined in the context of a large-scale fraud investigation in which funds collected from the public through payment gateways were traced into the appellant's bank accounts and then routed to trading and self-accounts. The appellant did not comply with summons issued under the money-laundering law and failed to produce credible evidence of the asserted lawful sources of funds such as tuition income, savings, loans, or other personal earnings. In view of the statutory burden and the material showing that the credited amounts were linked to the fraud proceeds, no basis was found to dislodge the finding that the attached amounts represented proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed and the attachment was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the appellants (NBFCs and fintech/service providers) was valid though the appellants were not named as accused in the FIRs; (ii) Whether the contractual/service-agreement model and conduct of the appellants (outsourcing, control of lending apps, revenue sharing/FLDG) amounted to involvement in scheduled offences/proceeds of crime and breach of RBI outsourcing guidelines such as to justify attachment.

Issue (i): Whether provisional attachment under Section 5 PMLA can be made in respect of persons not named as accused.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined statutory definitions and provisions defining "proceeds of crime" and the attachment regime and relied on precedent interpreting the scope of Section 5 to cover "any person" in possession of proceeds derived from scheduled offences. The Tribunal considered whether material in possession of the authorised officer provided recorded reasons to believe that the appellants were in possession of proceeds of crime and whether non-naming as accused precluded attachment.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was valid and could be made against persons not named as accused where material establishes possession or involvement with proceeds of crime; this issue is decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractual scheme and operational conduct of the NBFCs and fintech/service providers established sufficient involvement in the generation or handling of proceeds of crime and violative outsourcing of core functions.

Analysis: The Tribunal analysed the terms of the service agreements, scope of services (including app control, data capture, loan processing, collections), the revenue sharing/FLDG arrangements, evidence of high effective interest/processing fees and use of call centres, and relevant RBI outsourcing directions. The Tribunal found that the agreements and practical operation conferred effective control of lending and recovery on service providers, enabled capture and misuse of borrower data, and resulted in a business model generating proceeds through the scheduled offences; it also held that the arrangements outsourced core NBFC activities contrary to RBI guidance.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' contractual model and conduct amounted to involvement with proceeds of crime and breaches of regulatory outsourcing norms; this issue is decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The adjudicatory findings sustain the confirmation of provisional attachment under the PMLA against the appellants; the appeals are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material shows a person (even if not named as accused) is in possession of or involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime, provisional attachment under Section 5 of the PMLA is permissible; contractual allocation of tasks that in practice vests control of core lending and recovery activities with service providers can establish involvement in generation and handling of proceeds of crime and justify attachment.

Issues: (i) Whether the Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation attaching land, building, plant and machinery of the appellant company (OSISL) were justified on the ground that proceeds of crime were injected into the company (by purchase/conversion of share warrants and via NBFCs); (ii) Whether the Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation attaching 55,00,000 shares held by the appellant shareholder (BKM Mining Pvt. Ltd.) were justified as being derived from proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether attachment of immovable and movable assets of the appellant company could be sustained on the finding that proceeds of crime were injected into the company by way of purchase/conversion of share warrants and through NBFCs controlled by the accused.

Analysis: The material under consideration includes the investigative charting of fund flows, statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, documentary evidence of investments and conversions of share warrants, and tracing of funds through multiple entities and NBFCs. The respondents case is that funds originating from the predicate offence were layered through identified entities and NBFCs and injected into the company by purchase and conversion of share warrants and by loans/funding routed through such NBFCs. The appellants relied on antecedent incorporation, historical acquisition of fixed assets, servicing of loans, and asserted absence of direct receipt of tainted funds into the companys accounts. The Tribunal examined the contemporaneous investigative findings, the identified money trail, the role of NBFCs as conduits for routed funds, and admissions in recorded statements, and evaluated whether these established a sufficient link between the predicate offence proceeds and the investments/loans to justify provisional attachment under the Act.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation in respect of the companys land, building, plant and machinery are sustained; the Court finds that proceeds of crime were injected into the company by means of purchase/conversion of share warrants and via NBFCs, justifying attachment.

Issue (ii): Whether attachment of the shares held by the appellant shareholder could be sustained on the finding that acquisition was financed by proceeds of crime routed through NBFCs and related entities.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the evidence of the share purchase, the financing arrangements involving NBFCs, statements indicating the role of the accused and intermediaries, and the traced flow of funds from entities identified in the investigation to the acquisition. The respondents investigation linked the source of funds for the share acquisition to proceeds of the predicate offence, including admissions and documentary tracing; the appellants contended that the purchase was made from a bank and financed by legitimate loans and that the acquisition post-dated the check-period. The Tribunal evaluated the nexus between the routed funds and the share acquisition and the sufficiency of the material to treat the shares as derived from proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation in respect of the shares held by the shareholder appellant are sustained; the Court finds that the shares were acquired using funds traced to proceeds of crime and that attachment is justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeals challenging confirmation of the provisional attachment orders are without merit and are dismissed, upholding the investigative findings that proceeds of the predicate offence were routed into the subject company and the share acquisition through identified entities and NBFC conduits, thereby justifying attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is justified where investigative material establishes a tracible nexusby money trail, admissions, and routing through intermediary entities (including NBFCs)between proceeds of a predicate offence and the assets or investments sought to be attached.

Issues: (i) Whether the filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation ousts the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal against an Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 8 of the PMLA; (ii) Whether, on merits, there was sufficient material to justify continued retention/freezing of the seized properties, digital devices and bank accounts under Section 8(3) of the PMLA.

Issue (i): Whether the filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation ousts the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal against an AA order under Section 8.

Analysis: The appeal record shows a prosecution complaint was filed and confiscation was proposed; however, the question of jurisdiction depends on the statutory scheme and the specific provisions applicable at the relevant time. The prior authority relied upon concerned a different statutory period and factual matrix and does not establish a general rule that filing a prosecution complaint renders an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal infructuous. The Appellate Tribunal retains the power to examine legitimacy of the AA's order and to decide the appeal on merits regardless of subsequent prosecution proceedings.

Conclusion: The filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation does not oust the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction; the Tribunal may entertain and decide the appeal against the AA's order.

Issue (ii): Whether there was sufficient material to justify continued retention/freezing of the seized items and accounts under Section 8(3).

Analysis: The impugned order contains factual findings including transactional links, account analysis, and chat-extract inferences connecting the seized items and frozen funds to the alleged criminal syndicate and routing of funds. On the preponderance of probabilities at the interlocutory stage, the material relied upon supports a finding of involvement of the properties in money laundering. The appellants did not discharge the onus to show absence of involvement or illegality of the retention.

Conclusion: On the merits, there was sufficient material to uphold continued retention/freezing of the seized properties and accounts under Section 8(3); the appeal on merits fails.

Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal retains jurisdiction to entertain appeals under Section 8 of the PMLA notwithstanding the filing of a prosecution complaint, and on the facts presented the AA's order permitting continued retention/freezing is sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal challenges an Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 8, the Appellate Tribunal retains jurisdiction to decide the appeal irrespective of subsequent filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation, and continued retention under Section 8(3) is justified at the interlocutory stage if, on the preponderance of probabilities, there is sufficient material linking the property to money laundering.

Issues: Whether the confirmed provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could survive when some accused persons had been discharged in the PMLA prosecutions and parts of the scheduled offence proceedings had been quashed.

Analysis: The attached properties were assailed on the ground that the predicate offence had been quashed or that the appellants stood discharged in the PMLA cases. The governing principle applied was that money-laundering action cannot continue once the person concerned is finally absolved in the scheduled offence by discharge, acquittal, or quashing. On the facts, however, the record showed that all appellants had not been finally absolved in the scheduled offence. In particular, a principal accused remained chargeable and the scheduled offence proceedings against him were still pending. The Tribunal also noted that PMLA attachment is not confined only to the named accused in the scheduled offence and may continue against a person involved in the proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment did not fail on the pleaded ground of discharge or quashing, and the appeals were rejected.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether attachment under PMLA can be sustained against persons whose names do not appear as accused in the FIR/charge-sheet for the scheduled offence, if the properties are alleged to represent proceeds of crime or are held in connection therewith.

(ii) Whether immovable properties acquired prior to the alleged period of criminal activity can be attached as "value" of proceeds of crime when the alleged tainted property is not traceable/available.

(iii) Whether release of attached properties is warranted for absence of a direct nexus between the specific properties and the proceeds of crime, where attachment is also justified on the basis of indirect acquisition or "value thereof".

(iv) Whether the fact that properties are mortgaged to banks negates the statutory basis for attachment and/or the "reason to believe" regarding likelihood of frustration of proceedings, and whether attachment can still be maintained to prevent alienation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Attachment of property held by persons not named as accused in scheduled offence

Legal framework: The Tribunal examined the reach of attachment under the PMLA as applied to persons other than those named as accused in the scheduled offence.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the statutory sweep of attachment is not confined to persons arraigned in the scheduled offence case. It accepted that property can be attached in the hands of "any person" if it is connected with proceeds of crime, and that attachment may extend beyond those charge-sheeted for the predicate offence.

Conclusion: The plea for release merely because certain appellants were not named in the FIR/charge-sheet was rejected; attachment was held maintainable against non-accused holders as well.

Issue (ii) & (iii) (Grouped): Attachment of pre-offence properties; necessity of direct nexus; attachment as "value thereof" and indirect proceeds

Legal framework: The Tribunal applied the definition of "proceeds of crime" as including not only property derived/obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also "the value of any such property".

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the definition has multiple limbs, one permitting attachment of property representing the "value" of proceeds of crime. On the facts, it noted the finding that the proceeds of crime were misappropriated/laundered and were not available/traced during investigation, and that immovable properties were therefore attached as "value thereof" and/or as indirectly acquired from proceeds of crime. It further held that establishing a direct connection of each attached property with the proceeds of crime is not essential where the property is attached as indirect proceeds or as equivalent value under the statutory definition.

Conclusion: Properties acquired even prior to the alleged period of offence were not treated as immune from attachment where attachment was justified as "value" of proceeds of crime and the tainted assets were not traceable. The contention that properties must have a direct, demonstrated nexus with the proceeds of crime to sustain attachment was rejected.

Issue (iv): Effect of mortgage; "reason to believe" and apprehension of frustration; continued attachment despite security interest

Legal framework: The Tribunal considered the statutory threshold concerning apprehension/likelihood of frustration of proceedings underlying attachment, and the purpose of attachment to preserve property for potential confiscation upon conclusion of trial.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that mortgage does not eliminate the possibility of alienation: settlement with the secured creditor could enable transfer to a buyer with payment of dues directly to the bank, creating new third-party claims and frustrating attachment/confiscation objectives. It also considered that if attachment were lifted merely due to mortgage, it could enable restructuring/takeover of the mortgage by another lender and further dealings, thereby undermining effective preservation. It emphasized that attachment under PMLA is for protection of property pending trial and cannot be equated with physical possession concepts under other recovery regimes. It further reasoned that once a prosecution complaint relying on the attached properties is filed, the properties are to be preserved for adjudication of confiscation and rival claims by the competent PMLA Court, and should not be released on alleged irregularities at the attachment stage.

Conclusion: Mortgaged status was held not to bar attachment; the Tribunal upheld the "reason to believe" that absence of attachment could permit alienation and frustrate proceedings. It indicated that secured creditors may seek permission from the PMLA Court to auction, subject to safeguarding excess sale proceeds (after loan adjustment) by deposit/FDR to be dealt with as per the PMLA's confiscation/disposal framework.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the appeals were maintainable despite the appellants' conversion from private limited companies into LLPs and the respondent's objection to the locus standi of the individuals prosecuting the appeals.

(ii) Whether the attached commercial properties could be treated as involved in money-laundering/proceeds of crime (including "value thereof"), having regard to the appellants' contention that the acquisition of control/shareholding and the underlying properties pre-dated the alleged scheduled offence period.

(iii) Whether attachment was invalid because the appellant entities were not accused in the prosecution complaint under the money-laundering law.

(iv) Whether the attachment/confirmation was illegal for want of "pending proceedings" at the time of confirmation, and whether the attachment had lapsed due to alleged non-compliance with amended time-limits for filing the prosecution complaint.

(v) Whether the Tribunal could accept the appellants' argument that no "proceeds of crime" existed because the scheduled offence was not committed, so as to defeat continued attachment.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Maintainability after conversion into LLPs and locus standi objection

Legal framework: The Court considered the LLP Act provisions (Third Schedule) dealing with continuation of pending proceedings upon conversion of a company into an LLP.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the respondent's objection that the individuals lacked authority because they had ceased to be directors and because of alleged company-law non-compliances. On verification, the Court found the appellant entities had been converted into LLPs. The Court accepted the application bringing the conversion and amended memo of parties on record, holding that conversion does not bar continuation of proceedings; pending proceedings "may be continued, completed and enforced" by or against the LLP. The respondent's reply was treated as not opposing substitution and as misunderstanding the purpose of the application.

Conclusion: The appeals were held maintainable and were to be decided on merits notwithstanding conversion into LLPs and the locus standi objection.

Issue (ii): Whether properties acquired earlier could be attached as proceeds of crime / "value thereof" and whether the shares/control were acquired out of tainted funds

Legal framework: The Court applied the statutory conception of "proceeds of crime" (including "value thereof") and relied on binding precedent (as applied by the Court) that the definition is of wide import and permits attachment reaching proceeds of crime "in whosoever's name they are kept" and also attachment with reference to "value of such property." The Court also relied on statutory burdens/presumptions noted in the judgment (onus under section 8(1), burden under section 24, and presumption regarding interconnected transactions under section 23).

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellants argued that share acquisitions were funded by cheque payments by another entity and completed prior to the alleged crime period, and that the underlying properties were owned since 2002; hence, they were outside the money-laundering law. The Court rejected this, accepting the investigative findings recorded in the complaint: the entity used for share purchase was found to be a shell company with no genuine business transactions; large sums were infused through entities identified as engaged in providing cheques against cash; share consideration was allegedly paid in a structured manner including payments after control had already shifted; and substantial aspects indicated that the accused were in control and management of the appellant companies during the relevant period. The Court held that, upon show cause notice, the appellants failed to satisfactorily explain the source of funds and did not discharge the statutory onus; the statutory burden/presumptions operated against them.

On the "pre-acquired property" contention, the Court held that attachment was made as "proceeds of crime/value thereof," and that it was permissible to attach properties with reference to value even if the assets were acquired earlier, particularly where attachment proceeds on the "value" limb. The Court expressly rejected the appellants' argument that properties purchased earlier were immune, applying its stated legal position that the definition of proceeds of crime is wide enough to include "value of any such property."

Conclusion: The Court concluded the attached commercial properties were validly attached/confirmed as involved in money-laundering/proceeds of crime or "value thereof," and the appellants' "pre-crime acquisition" defence did not warrant interference.

Issue (iii): Whether attachment was invalid because the appellant entities were not accused in the prosecution complaint

Legal framework: The Court applied the principle (as adopted in its reasoning) that the attachment power is not confined to persons named as accused in the scheduled offence/prosecution complaint; it extends to any person involved in processes/activities connected with proceeds of crime, and the statutory objective is to reach proceeds of crime irrespective of the name in which held.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held it is well-established that the statutory sweep is not limited to accused persons. It further accepted that, for the continuation mechanism referred to by the Court, it is sufficient that a complaint alleging the money-laundering offence is pending; it is not necessary that every affected person be shown as an accused because cognizance is of the offence and not of specific offenders.

Conclusion: The Court rejected the contention that attachment failed merely because the appellant entities were not named as accused in the prosecution complaint.

Issue (iv): Whether confirmation was illegal for lack of pending proceedings / lapse due to amended time-limits

Legal framework: The Court examined the statutory amendments introducing time-limits for continuation of attachment during investigation and the requirement tied to pendency of proceedings, and applied those amendments to the case chronology.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the confirmation order was passed when no statutory time-limit for filing the prosecution complaint existed. Later amendments introduced a 90-day (and later 365-day) cap. On facts, however, the prosecution complaint had already been filed before the amendment introducing the 90-day period came into force. Therefore, the Court held that the agency was not in breach of the amended requirement as invoked by the appellants, and the attachment would continue till final disposal of the prosecution case. The Court relied on a Tribunal precedent to reach this conclusion.

Conclusion: The Court held the attachment had not lapsed and the confirmation was not illegal on the ground of absence of pending proceedings/time-limit non-compliance.

Issue (v): Whether attachment must fail because there were allegedly no proceeds of crime (scheduled offence not committed)

Legal framework: The Court applied the principle (as adopted in its reasoning) that money-laundering action linked to a scheduled offence cannot survive if the accused is finally absolved of the scheduled offence by discharge/acquittal/quashing, but until such final absolution the attachment mechanism operates as a balancing arrangement to secure availability of the proceeds/value pending adjudication.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to accept the appellants' attempt to negate the existence of proceeds of crime by disputing commission of the scheduled offence on merits. It held a prosecution complaint in the scheduled offence existed and the accused had not been finally absolved; further, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to render a verdict on culpability in the scheduled offence. Until competent criminal adjudication absolves the accused, continued attachment was held justified to balance interests and secure the property/value for the statutory process.

Conclusion: The Court rejected the "no scheduled offence/no proceeds of crime" contention at this stage and upheld continuation of attachment pending outcome before the competent criminal court.

Result: All material challenges failed; the Court found no ground to interfere with the confirmation of attachment and dismissed the appeals.