TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment could be sustained despite the acquittal of one appellant from the scheduled offence and the challenge to the retrospective reach of the amended money-laundering regime; (ii) Whether the attached properties were shown to represent proceeds of crime and to be involved in money laundering.
Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment could be sustained despite the acquittal of one appellant from the scheduled offence and the challenge to the retrospective reach of the amended money-laundering regime.
Analysis: The attachment power was treated as directed against proceeds of crime and not merely against the person charged with the predicate offence. The decision proceeded on the basis that money-laundering is an independent offence, that the relevant inquiry is whether property is involved in laundering, and that acquittal in the scheduled offence does not by itself compel release of attached property. The amended position was also considered, but the decision ultimately held that the result did not depend on the amendment because the properties were liable even under the unamended law on the facts found.
Conclusion: The challenge based on acquittal of the scheduled offence and retrospectivity failed, and the attachment was not liable to be set aside on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the attached properties were shown to represent proceeds of crime and to be involved in money laundering.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the finding that the properties were acquired or funded through tainted money, including amounts traced to the alleged illicit activity, repayments of bank finance from unexplained sources, and layered transfers through connected persons and entities. It held that partial taint was sufficient, that a property need not be wholly funded by crime proceeds to attract attachment, and that the transaction could be viewed as a continuing laundering process culminating on completion of the acquisition and related dealings. The claims of bona fide purchase, independent income, and lack of corroboration were rejected on the facts.
Conclusion: The attached properties were held to be proceeds of crime and liable to attachment under the Act.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed and the order confirming provisional attachment was upheld, leaving the attached properties of all appellants under restraint.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the decisive question is whether the property is involved in laundering of proceeds of crime, and not whether the person concerned stands convicted of the scheduled offence; partial taint is sufficient to sustain attachment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
