Proceeds of crime and retrospective PMLA attachment cannot cover clean business advances predating scheduling of the offence.

Funds advanced under a documented commercial land-aggregation arrangement, and assets traced to those advances, were treated as not constituting proceeds of crime because the record showed clean, book-recorded business funds with no established layering or laundering nexus. The Tribunal also found that attachment could not extend retrospectively to advances made before the underlying corruption offence became a scheduled offence under PMLA on 01.06.2009, to that extent offending the bar against ex post facto penal application. The consent decree and income-tax appellate findings further weakened the Enforcement Directorate's basis for attachment. The appeals were allowed and the attachment orders were set aside, with release or refund of the attached assets and amounts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the monies advanced by the appellant to the Nilesh Thakur group and the assets acquired out of those funds could be treated as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment orders could be sustained when the alleged predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was notified as a scheduled offence only from 01.06.2009 and part of the advances predated that date. (iii) Whether the consent decree and the income-tax appellate findings negated the Enforcement Directorate's basis for attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the monies advanced by the appellant to the Nilesh Thakur group and the assets acquired out of those funds could be treated as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had advanced funds under a documented land-aggregation arrangement and that the amounts were reflected in its books as business advances. The attached properties, vehicles, fixed deposits and balances were traced to those funds. The Tribunal accepted that the monies were clean and untainted and that the transactions did not constitute layering of tainted proceeds. It also held that the appellant was not shown to have been involved in the alleged criminal activity and that the attached properties represented the appellant's beneficial entitlement under the arrangement and the consent decree.

Conclusion: The properties acquired from the appellant's funds could not be treated as proceeds of crime.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment orders could be sustained when the alleged predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was notified as a scheduled offence only from 01.06.2009 and part of the advances predated that date.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that a substantial part of the appellant's advances had been made before 01.06.2009, when the offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 became a scheduled offence under the PMLA. In that view, the PMLA could not be applied retrospectively to those earlier transactions. The Tribunal further held that the Enforcement Directorate's action, to that extent, offended the protection against ex post facto penal consequences.

Conclusion: The attachment could not be sustained for the pre-01.06.2009 advances and was held to be without jurisdiction to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether the consent decree and the income-tax appellate findings negated the Enforcement Directorate's basis for attachment.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the consent decree was binding and could not be ignored as lacking legal efficacy. It also accepted that the income-tax appellate orders had displaced the adverse assessment findings relied upon in the criminal and PMLA action, thereby weakening the foundation of the Enforcement Directorate's belief that the amounts were illicit. These findings reinforced the conclusion that the attachments rested on an unsustainable premise.

Conclusion: The consent decree and the income-tax appellate findings supported the appellant's case and undermined the attachment orders.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the impugned attachment orders were set aside, and the attached properties and related amounts were directed to be released or refunded in favour of the appellant and allied applicants as consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Funds advanced under a bona fide commercial arrangement, and the assets traceable to those funds, cannot be treated as proceeds of crime in the absence of a legally sustainable predicate offence and a valid nexus with money laundering; penal attachment cannot operate retrospectively to cover transactions that predate the relevant offence becoming scheduled under the PMLA.

---