Appeal allowed, Provisional Attachment Order set aside, Appellant directed to secure alleged proceeds of crime.

The appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging the Provisional Attachment Order issued by the Respondent was allowed. The impugned order and the provisional attachment order were set aside. However, the Appellant was directed to secure the alleged amount attributed as proceeds of crime and deposit it in favor of the respondent to ensure compliance with the Act, with the provision for lifting the attachment upon deposit.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Appeal under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order of Adjudicating Authority.
2. Provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
3. Allegation of money laundering and fraud against the Appellant.
4. Legal validity of the provisional attachment order.
5. Compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
6. Delay in passing the provisional attachment order.
7. Calculation of proceeds of crime and attachment value.
8. Justifiability of attaching immovable property unconnected to the alleged offence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging the Provisional Attachment Order issued by the Respondent in relation to various properties, including a specific land parcel.

2. The Respondent passed the Provisional Attachment Order concerning the Appellant's properties, alleging that the attached properties were equivalent to the proceeds of crime, specifically related to a steel transaction involving alleged fraud.

3. The Appellant, a trader in Iron and Steel, faced accusations of being involved in a fraudulent steel transaction, leading to the declaration of a certain amount as proceeds of crime by the Respondent.

4. The legality of the provisional attachment order was questioned based on the lack of proper reasoning provided by the Respondent, failing to meet the requirements of the Act.

5. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing the necessity of stating reasons to believe in writing for attaching proceeds of crime.

6. Concerns were raised regarding the delay in passing the provisional attachment order, especially when the alleged proceeds of crime attributable to the Appellant were relatively low, indicating unjustified delays in the process.

7. The calculation of the proceeds of crime and the value of the attached property were scrutinized, pointing out discrepancies and lack of proper assessment in determining the attachment value.

8. The judgment questioned the justifiability of attaching immovable property not directly linked to the alleged offence, suggesting mala fide intentions behind such actions and emphasizing the need for a fair and proportionate approach.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and the provisional attachment order. However, the Appellant was directed to secure the alleged amount attributed as proceeds of crime and deposit it in favor of the respondent to ensure compliance with the Act, with the provision for lifting the attachment upon deposit.

---