Tribunal sets aside unjustified attachment order, ruling lack of evidence connecting property to alleged crime

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order and set aside both the provisional attachment order and the confirmation/impugned order related to the specific property in question. It found that the property was acquired before the alleged criminal activity, emphasizing the lack of evidence connecting it to proceeds of crime as defined in the PMLA Act. The Tribunal criticized the Adjudicating Authority for not providing valid reasons or evidence to support the attachment, ultimately ruling the attachment unjustified. No costs were imposed, and the decision did not extend to other borrowers' properties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order
2. Challenge to Impugned Order and Provisional Attachment Order regarding specific property

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the confirmation of a Provisional Attachment Order dated 01.06.2017. The Appellant, defendant no. 6 before the Adjudicating Authority, challenged the Impugned Order and the Provisional Attachment Order related to a specific property described in the schedule. The Tribunal clarified that it was only concerned with the case of the appellant and not with other defendants before the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue 2: Challenge to Impugned Order and Provisional Attachment Order regarding specific property

The case revolved around the property described in the schedule, an area of land in IDCO's Info City, which the Respondent alleged was acquired using proceeds of crime. However, the Tribunal found that the payment for the land was made in 2009, well before the loan application in 2010. The Tribunal highlighted that the property could not be considered proceeds of crime as it was acquired before the alleged criminal activity. The judgment emphasized the lack of valid reasons or material to support the attachment of the property, indicating a failure to establish a connection to proceeds of crime as defined in the PMLA Act, 2002.

The Tribunal criticized the Adjudicating Authority for not recording reasons or applying due diligence before confirming the attachment. It noted that the mandatory requirements of the PMLA Act were not prima facie satisfied and highlighted the lack of evidence to suggest that the property was obtained through criminal activity. The judgment concluded that the attachment of the property was unjustified and set aside both the provisional attachment order and the confirmation/impugned order specifically concerning the appellant and the mentioned property.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The Tribunal refrained from commenting on the properties of other borrowers, leaving their cases to be decided on their own merits.

---