TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a vehicle purchased from bank finance before the alleged predicate offence could be treated as "proceeds of crime" or its "value thereof" and be confirmedly attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the secured bank's hypothecation and enforcement rights over the vehicle could be displaced by the attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether a vehicle purchased from bank finance before the alleged predicate offence could be treated as "proceeds of crime" or its "value thereof" and be confirmedly attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The vehicle was purchased out of loan funds much before the demonetisation-linked allegations and long before the alleged defaulted conduct relied on by the enforcement authority. The vehicle was not shown to have been acquired from criminal proceeds or to have any direct nexus with the alleged predicate offence. On the admitted facts, the loan transaction was genuine, the asset was identifiable, and the mere existence of allegations against the borrower did not convert the bank-financed vehicle into tainted property.
Conclusion: The vehicle could not be treated as "proceeds of crime" or "value thereof", and its attachment was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the secured bank's hypothecation and enforcement rights over the vehicle could be displaced by the attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The loan-cum-hypothecation arrangement created a security interest in favour of the bank, and the bank had acted to preserve the asset. The decision also proceeded on the principle that secured creditors' rights are protected where the property is acquired through legitimate financing and the asset is not established as criminal proceeds. The enforcement attachment could not defeat the bank's prior secured interest in the absence of a proven taint on the financed asset.
Conclusion: The bank's secured interest prevailed, and the attachment against the vehicle was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The provisional and confirmed attachment of the vehicle was quashed, and the vehicle was directed to be released to the appellant with liberty to proceed for recovery of any outstanding loan dues in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Property acquired through a genuine and prior secured financing transaction cannot be attached as proceeds of crime unless a direct nexus with criminal activity is established, and the rights of a prior secured creditor are not displaced merely because money-laundering proceedings are initiated against the borrower.
TaxTMI 
