Tribunal quashes attachment order, citing lack of evidence and violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the provisional attachment order. It found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide clear findings on whether the disputed amount was proceeds of crime and violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, there was no evidence indicating the appellant's involvement in money laundering or knowingly receiving proceeds of crime. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of a direct link between the appellant and the accused, ultimately leading to the decision to quash the provisional attachment order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 8(1) of the PMLA and principles of natural justice.
2. Classification of Rs. 70 lakhs as proceeds of crime.
3. Appellant's involvement in the alleged money laundering.
4. Validity of the provisional attachment order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 8(1) of the PMLA and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority did not comply with Section 8(1) of the PMLA, resulting in a gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the notice issued under Section 8(1) lacked reasons and did not call upon the appellant to disclose the source of income for the attached property. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide reasons for its conclusions, demonstrating a lack of judicial accountability and violating the principles of audi alteram partem.

2. Classification of Rs. 70 Lakhs as Proceeds of Crime:
The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to determine whether Rs. 70 lakhs was part of the Rs. 19 crores of legitimate money or the Rs. 85.28 crores classified as proceeds of crime in M/s Indu Builders' account. Despite this, the Adjudicating Authority did not provide a clear finding on this issue. The Tribunal noted that the complaint did not disclose whether the Rs. 70 lakhs received by the appellant came from a clean source or was part of the proceeds of crime. The Tribunal highlighted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the statement of Sri B.L. Venkataiah, which indicated that Rs. 19 crores in M/s Indu Builders' account was clean money.

3. Appellant's Involvement in the Alleged Money Laundering:
The appellant was not named in the FIR, nor was any chargesheet filed against her under the scheduled offence. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had no direct or indirect link with the accused and was not aware that the Rs. 70 lakhs was part of the proceeds of crime. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had utilized the Rs. 70 lakhs for business purposes and repaid the amount from a legitimate loan sanctioned by SBI. The Tribunal found that there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that the appellant knowingly received proceeds of crime or was involved in money laundering.

4. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order:
The Tribunal found that the provisional attachment order did not satisfy the requirements of Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not in possession of any proceeds of crime on the date of the provisional attachment. The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority's order was bad in law and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the provisional attachment order and set aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2017.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and quashed the provisional attachment order. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide clear findings on whether the Rs. 70 lakhs was part of the proceeds of crime and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was involved in money laundering or knowingly received proceeds of crime.

---