Provisional attachment under money-laundering law can reach proceeds of crime, with writ relief usually barred by statutory remedies.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can extend to property involved in money-laundering even if it is not confined to the person charged in the scheduled offence, because the attachment power is aimed at securing proceeds of crime on the basis of material in the officer's possession. The statute also provides an adjudicatory safeguard, allowing the affected person to explain the source of the property before the Adjudicating Authority. Where that special mechanism and a further appeal are available, writ intervention at the stage of provisional attachment is ordinarily discouraged in favour of the statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential adjudication notice suffered from want of jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be entertained in view of the statutory remedies under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential adjudication notice suffered from want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The attachment power under Section 5 is intended to secure proceeds of crime and is not confined only to the person charged of the scheduled offence. The statutory scheme permits attachment where the authorised officer has reason to believe, on the basis of material in possession, that property is involved in money-laundering and that non-attachment is likely to frustrate proceedings. The court relied on the breadth of the definition of proceeds of crime and on the independent nature of the money-laundering offence. It also noted that the adjudicatory process under Section 8 provides the affected person an opportunity to explain the source of the property.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and the consequential proceedings were not shown to suffer from lack of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be entertained in view of the statutory remedies under the Act.

Analysis: The Act contains an inbuilt mechanism of adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority and a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. In view of that statutory framework, the court held that the petitioner should first pursue the remedies provided by the special enactment rather than invoke writ jurisdiction at the stage of provisional attachment. The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for interference and was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed, and the petitioner was required to work out the remedies available under the special statutory mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be invoked against any person in possession of proceeds of crime, and writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted where the statute provides a complete adjudicatory and appellate remedy.

---