Third-party property cannot be attached under money-laundering law without material nexus, notice, and hearing.

A third party's property cannot be provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless the authority records material-based reasons to believe that the property itself represents or is linked to proceeds of crime and is likely to be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. Here, the property had been acquired long before the alleged offence, the record did not show a direct nexus with tainted funds, and the affected owner was neither an accused nor shown to have knowledge of any illicit source. The attachment was also made without notice or hearing, contrary to the statutory safeguard and natural justice. The attachment was set aside and the property released.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was sustainable when the appellant was not an accused in the scheduled offence or the prosecution complaint, and the property was attached solely on the basis of the son's statement and without notice or opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The attachment was founded on the assumption that money allegedly received by the appellant's son from ITASCA had been used for renovation of the appellant's house. The property, however, had been purchased decades earlier and the building was shown to be in existence long before the alleged scheduled offence. The statutory requirements under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 demand a recorded reason to believe that a person is in possession of proceeds of crime and that such property is likely to be concealed or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation. The record did not establish any direct nexus between the appellant's property and proceeds of crime, nor did it show that the appellant was aware of any tainted source. The appellant was also not issued notice or heard before attachment, which offended the procedural safeguards under Section 8(1) and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the appellant's property was unsustainable and was liable to be set aside; the appeal was allowed and the property was ordered to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: A third party's property cannot be validly provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless the authority records a proper reason to believe, supported by material, that the property itself is involved in money-laundering and affords the affected person the notice and hearing required by the statute.

---