PMLA attachment survives compromise closure of predicate case where statutory remedies are not exhausted

Writ relief against a confirmed attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act was unavailable where the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory appellate remedy and the separate release mechanism provided under the Rules. The Court treated the PMLA proceedings as distinct and independent from the predicate criminal case, so closure of that case by compromise did not amount to a merits-based exoneration or automatically undo the attachment. As a result, the challenge to the continuing attachment failed and the statutory remedies remained the proper route for seeking release of the property.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking release of attached properties was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and the Rules; and whether closure of the predicate criminal case by compromise affected the subsisting attachment and proceedings under the Act.

Analysis: The attachment had already been confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and the petitioners had not availed the appellate remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The statutory framework also provides a mechanism before the Special Court under Rule 3-A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Registration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 for release of attached property prior to confiscation. The Court held that the proceedings under the predicate offence and the proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 are distinct and independent. The closure of the criminal case by compromise was not an acquittal on merits, and therefore did not by itself negate the allegation of money laundering or the attachment already confirmed under the Act.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for the relief sought, and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory remedies available under the Act and the Rules. The attachment was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the continuing attachment failed because the petitioners did not exhaust the statutory remedies and the compromise-based closure of the predicate case did not dislodge the proceedings under the money-laundering .

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a specific appellate and release mechanism, writ relief will ordinarily not be granted against a confirmed attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and closure of the predicate offence by compromise does not, without a merits-based exoneration, automatically defeat proceedings under the Act.

---