Tribunal denies stay on property attachment in money laundering case due to lack of evidence

The Tribunal denied the stay petition regarding the attachment of a property in a money laundering case. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case in her favor due to the property's joint ownership with her husband, its purchase after marriage, and the husband's involvement in criminal cases. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence linking the property to the appellant as proceeds of crime and the lack of financial hardship plea. Consequently, the impugned order was not stayed.

---

---

Issues: Stay petition regarding attachment of property in a money laundering case.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal ATPMLA dealt with a stay petition concerning the attachment of a property in a money laundering case. The adjudicating authority had attached six properties of the appellant and her husband, with the appellant seeking a stay specifically for one property, House No. L-1601, 16th Floor, JMD Garden, Gurgaon, Haryana. The appellant's counsel argued a strong prima facie case, claiming the property was purchased with money received as a gift during her marriage and that no offense linking her to the property as proceeds of crime had been established by the department. The burden of proof, according to the appellant, did not lie with her as no offense was linked to her, and the case primarily involved her husband, who faced multiple FIRs for serious offenses like murder and extortion. The appellant did not cite any undue financial hardship.

The respondent's counsel contended that the property, jointly owned by the appellant and a person identified as an alias of her husband, was indeed proceeds of crime. The respondent highlighted that the property was purchased after the appellant's marriage in 2016, with a clear link to her husband, against whom FIRs for serious offenses existed. The burden of proof, as per the respondent, rested on the appellant, which she failed to discharge. The respondent argued that the adjudicating authority had addressed this issue in the impugned order, to which the appellant did not provide a counter-argument. The respondent emphasized the lack of financial hardship plea by the appellant.

After examining the case and hearing both parties, the Tribunal found it to be arguable. The Tribunal did not find that the appellant had established a prima facie case in her favor, considering the property's joint ownership with her husband, its post-marriage purchase, and the husband's involvement in various criminal cases, including being a defendant in the current impugned order and being in jail. Consequently, the Tribunal decided not to stay the impugned order, noting the absence of any plea regarding undue financial hardship.

---