Prior mortgage and pre-offence acquisition defeat proceeds-of-crime attachment under PMLA, while mandatory notice to secured creditors remains essential

Property acquired before the alleged criminal activity and subject to a prior bank mortgage could not be treated as proceeds of crime, because the required nexus with criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence was absent on the facts noted. The text also states that provisional attachment and its confirmation were unsustainable where no notice was served on the secured creditor and the creditor was not impleaded, despite the authority's knowledge of the mortgage. Mandatory participation requirements for interested persons under the PMLA had to be followed before confirmation of attachment, and the attachment was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether properties acquired before the alleged criminal activity and mortgaged to a bank could be treated as proceeds of crime and continued to remain under attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were vitiated for non-service of notice and non-impleadment of the secured creditor under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether properties acquired before the alleged criminal activity and mortgaged to a bank could be treated as proceeds of crime and continued to remain under attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The properties were found to have been acquired in 2001 to 2003, whereas the alleged scheduled offence and money-laundering activity arose much later. The record also showed that the bank had a prior equitable mortgage and that the properties were not derived from criminal activity. The definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(u) of the Act requires a nexus with criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, which was absent on the facts found.

Conclusion: The properties could not be treated as proceeds of crime and attachment could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were vitiated for non-service of notice and non-impleadment of the secured creditor under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Enforcement Directorate and the Adjudicating Authority were aware that the property was mortgaged to Bank of Baroda, yet no notice was served on the bank under Section 8(1) and the bank was not treated as a necessary interested party. Since the bank was a secured creditor with an enforceable interest in the property, non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 8 rendered the attachment unsustainable.

Conclusion: The attachment and confirmation were invalid for breach of the mandatory notice and participation requirements.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned attachment orders were set aside, with the secured creditor left free to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of its dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Property acquired before the alleged criminal activity and burdened by a prior secured interest cannot be treated as proceeds of crime for attachment under the PMLA, and the mandatory notice requirements protecting interested persons under Section 8 must be complied with before confirmation of attachment.

---