Appeal held, deferring to Special Court on money laundering case & property confiscation. Interim orders vacated.

The judgment held the appeal in abeyance, deferring to the Special Court's jurisdiction over the money laundering case and property confiscation. Interim orders were vacated, with both parties directed to update the tribunal on the Special Court's final decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order confirming attachment of properties acquired from proceeds of crime.
2. Interpretation of Section 44 of PMLA regarding the trial of scheduled offences and money laundering.
3. Merits of the case including source of income for property acquisition and lack of reason to believe for property attachment.
4. Special Court's jurisdiction over money laundering offences and property confiscation.

Issue 1: The appellants appealed against the order confirming the attachment of properties acquired from proceeds of crime, alleging that since the main accused had been acquitted in related criminal cases, there could be no proceeds of crime. They cited previous judgments to support their plea.

Issue 2: The judgment analyzed Section 44 of PMLA, emphasizing that the Special Court designated for the purpose must try both the offence of money laundering and the scheduled offence together. It referenced a Supreme Court case to reaffirm this interpretation.

Issue 3: On the merits of the case, the appellants claimed their revenue from construction and liquor licenses justified property investments. They argued against retrospective application of PMLA and lack of reason to believe for property attachment. The respondent countered, highlighting discrepancies in income sources and lack of documentation.

Issue 4: The judgment clarified the Special Court's exclusive jurisdiction over money laundering offences and property confiscation under PMLA. It outlined the process of attachment, confirmation, and final decision by the Special Court, emphasizing that the Appellate Tribunal lacked authority in confiscation matters.

Conclusion: The judgment held the appeal in abeyance, deferring to the Special Court's jurisdiction over the money laundering case and property confiscation. Interim orders were vacated, with both parties directed to update the tribunal on the Special Court's final decision.

---