Locus standi in money-laundering attachment proceedings requires direct injury to the appellant's own property interest.

A challenge to provisional attachment and confirmation orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 lies only where the applicant's own legal interest is directly affected by the attached property. The court found that the attachment operated against a company's bank account, not against any property belonging to the appellant, and he could not claim to be a person aggrieved merely because adverse observations were made in the attachment proceedings. As no property of the appellant had been attached, he had no enforceable interest or locus standi to maintain the appeal. The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, and the connected civil applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the provisional attachment and confirmation orders when no property belonging to the appellant had been attached.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shows that attachment under Section 5 is directed against property believed to be proceeds of crime, while adjudication under Section 8 concerns whether the attached property is involved in money-laundering. The record showed that the attached sum stood in the bank account of a company which had not challenged the attachment, and the appellant could not establish that any of his own properties had been attached. A person can challenge such orders only if he suffers legal injury or is a person aggrieved. Since the impugned attachment did not operate against the appellant's property, he had no enforceable interest in the attached property and could not maintain the appeal merely against observations recorded in the attachment proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant had no locus standi to challenge the attachment orders, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable at the instance of the appellant and were dismissed, with the connected civil applications also rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 lies only at the instance of a person whose own legal interest is directly affected by the attached property; a stranger without attachment of his property has no locus standi merely because adverse observations were made against him.

---