Tribunal upholds attachment in money laundering case after finding inconsistencies in appellant's explanations

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The appellant's explanations for the seized cash, claimed to be for personal expenses, were found inconsistent. Evidence indicated the cash was linked to proceeds of the TET 2011 scam. The Tribunal upheld the attachment, rejecting the appellant's claims and closing pending applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Validity of the cash seizure of Rs. 4,86,900/- from the appellant's residence.
3. Appellant's involvement in the TET 2011 scam.
4. Explanation and legitimacy of the seized cash as claimed by the appellant.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Provisional Attachment of Properties under PMLA:
The appeal challenges the impugned order dated 29-8-2014, confirming the provisional attachment of properties as per Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2014. The properties were attached based on allegations that the appellant and other accused persons generated proceeds of crime through fraudulent activities related to the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) 2011 scam. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment, which the appellant contested, claiming the attached properties were self-acquired and untainted.

2. Validity of the Cash Seizure of Rs. 4,86,900/- from the Appellant's Residence:
The appellant argued that the seized cash was his hard-earned money, withdrawn from his savings account for his daughter's pregnancy and delivery expenses. The appellant claimed the money remained unused and was kept at home. However, the respondent countered that the cash was part of the proceeds of crime from the TET 2011 scam. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the appellant's explanations regarding the source and purpose of the cash, leading to the rejection of his claims.

3. Appellant's Involvement in the TET 2011 Scam:
The appellant and other accused were charged under Sections 420 r/w 120B of IPC and Sections 7/13 & 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are scheduled offences under PMLA. The investigation revealed that the appellant, as Director of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, was allegedly the kingpin of a racket collecting money from candidates to fraudulently pass them in the TET 2011 examination. Statements from various accused persons corroborated the appellant's involvement in the scam.

4. Explanation and Legitimacy of the Seized Cash as Claimed by the Appellant:
The appellant provided multiple explanations for the seized cash, including claims that it was withdrawn for his daughter's delivery expenses and later returned by his daughter and son-in-law in installments. However, these explanations were inconsistent and contradictory. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for keeping such a large amount of cash at home for an extended period. Additionally, the appellant's bank statements showed no significant withdrawals to meet household expenses, raising doubts about the legitimacy of the seized cash.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's explanations for the seized cash were inconsistent and unconvincing. The evidence suggested that the cash was part of the proceeds of crime from the TET 2011 scam. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the provisional attachment of the properties was upheld. All pending applications were also closed.

---