Pre-existing secured creditor rights prevail over later PMLA attachment where mortgaged property is not shown as proceeds of crime.

A pre-existing mortgage over property acquired before the alleged laundering activity could not be defeated by provisional attachment under the PMLA where the secured creditor was not involved in the scheduled offence and the property itself was not shown to be proceeds of crime. The text also states that the secured creditor's priority under the SARFAESI/RDDB framework must be given effect by harmonious construction, so a later PMLA attachment cannot override an innocent bank's prior secured interest. The bank's recovery rights over the mortgaged asset are therefore protected, and attachment against that property is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mortgaged property acquired before the alleged laundering activity and supported by clean consideration could be provisionally attached and confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the secured creditor's statutory priority under the SARFAESI/RDDB framework could be disregarded in favour of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether a mortgaged property acquired before the alleged laundering activity and supported by clean consideration could be provisionally attached and confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The property in question was shown to have been acquired in 2013, whereas the alleged laundering transactions were subsequent. The record also showed that the property had been mortgaged to the appellant bank before the attachment proceedings and that the bank had no involvement in the scheduled offence. On the material before it, the attachment was sustained only on the basis that the accused had dealt with other proceeds of crime and that the property was the only available asset. The statutory scheme requires the property itself to be shown as involved in money laundering, and an innocent third party or bona fide secured creditor cannot be deprived merely because the offender's tainted funds are otherwise untraced.

Conclusion: The property could not be confirmed as proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant bank, and the attachment was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the secured creditor's statutory priority under the SARFAESI/RDDB framework could be disregarded in favour of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The secured debt regime under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, as amended, confers priority on secured creditors over other claims. The Tribunal applied the principle of harmonious construction and held that where the mortgage existed prior to the alleged criminal activity and the bank was not implicated in laundering, the later attachment under the PMLA could not override the bank's pre-existing secured interest. The appellant bank had already initiated SARFAESI action and was entitled to recover public money from the secured asset.

Conclusion: The appellant bank's secured creditor rights were held to prevail, and the attachment could not be sustained against the mortgaged property.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside to the extent it covered the mortgaged property, the provisional attachment was quashed for that property, and the bank's recovery rights were protected.

Ratio Decidendi: An innocent secured creditor's pre-existing mortgage over property acquired before the alleged laundering activity cannot be defeated by PMLA attachment unless the property itself is shown to be involved in money laundering, and the secured creditor's statutory priority must be given effect through harmonious construction.

---