Untainted property under PMLA rejected where inconsistent explanation for seized cash failed to match account records and surrounding material.

Cash recovered from the appellant's residence was examined under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to determine whether it was untainted property. The appellant's explanation that the money came from salary withdrawals was found inconsistent, as the account record showed earlier withdrawal of funds but his versions shifted on where the cash was kept, whether it was returned in instalments, and whether it was gifted to relatives. The Tribunal noted the absence of a satisfactory account of household expenses despite substantial salary credits and relied on surrounding material indicating a prima facie link to alleged proceeds of crime. The explanation was rejected as an afterthought, and confirmation of the provisional attachment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cash of Rs. 4,86,900 recovered from the appellant's residence was proved to be untainted money so as to warrant interference with the order confirming provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant claimed that the cash was withdrawn from his salary account and kept for family expenses, but the explanation was not consistent across the proceedings. The account statement showed withdrawal of Rs. 5,50,000 well before the seizure, yet the appellant gave shifting versions as to whether the amount was kept at home, returned in instalments, or gifted to relatives. The record also showed that the appellant did not satisfactorily explain the source of household expenses during the relevant period, despite substantial salary credits. In the background of the scheduled offences, the statements and surrounding material indicated a prima facie link between the seized cash and the alleged proceeds of crime. The Tribunal therefore rejected the explanation as an afterthought.

Conclusion: The seized cash was not accepted as untainted property, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.

---