Secured creditor priority over money-laundering attachment protects bona fide mortgage rights absent proof of proceeds of crime.

A bona fide secured creditor's mortgage over property acquired before the alleged tainted activity could not be treated as "proceeds of crime" without a clear factual and statutory nexus to money-laundering. The attachment order failed to establish that the property was derived from criminal activity or liable to be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation, so provisional attachment and confirmation could not be sustained. Later special legislation and amendments recognising priority for secured creditors were applied to hold that the mortgagee's enforcement rights under the recovery framework prevailed over inconsistent attachment provisions, particularly where the lending transaction was legitimate and unconnected with the scheduled offence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the secured property mortgaged to the appellant was "proceeds of crime" and could validly be provisionally attached and confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the rights of the secured creditor under the SARFAESI and recovery legislation had priority over attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the secured property mortgaged to the appellant was "proceeds of crime" and could validly be provisionally attached and confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The property had been acquired long before the alleged criminal conspiracy and before the period in which the alleged scheduled offence generated any tainted assets. The appellant had advanced a loan against an equitable mortgage created through deposit of title deeds, and the property was already encumbered for legitimate lending purposes. On the material recorded, the attachment order did not properly establish the statutory pre-condition that the property was derived from criminal activity or that it was likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation. The record also showed that the appellant had raised its claim as an innocent secured creditor and had placed the relevant loan and mortgage documents before the authority.

Conclusion: The secured property was not established to be "proceeds of crime", and the provisional attachment and its confirmation could not be sustained against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the rights of the secured creditor under the SARFAESI and recovery legislation had priority over attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The decision turned on the later statutory amendments conferring priority on secured creditors and on the principle that, where special statutes contain non obstante clauses, the later enactment prevails unless the legislature provides otherwise. The appellant's security interest had been created before the alleged tainted acquisition, and the bank's claim arose from a bona fide lending transaction unconnected with the scheduled offence. The statutory scheme and later amendments were treated as protecting the secured creditor's right to realise the mortgage property, especially where the creditor was not implicated in the money-laundering activity.

Conclusion: The secured creditor's claim had priority, and the attachment could not override the appellant's mortgage rights in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The attachment orders were unsustainable in law as against the appellant's secured interest, and the appeal succeeded with the provisional attachment and confirmation set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide secured creditor's mortgaged property cannot be treated as proceeds of crime absent a clear statutory and factual nexus with money-laundering, and later special legislation giving priority to secured creditors prevails over inconsistent earlier attachment provisions.

---