TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's residential property could be sustained when the property was acquired before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime and the alleged amount had already been secured elsewhere. (ii) Whether the attachment order and the adjudication under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 suffered from non-compliance with the statutory procedure and lack of application of mind.
Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's residential property could be sustained when the property was acquired before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime and the alleged amount had already been secured elsewhere.
Analysis: The property under attachment was shown to have been purchased in 1993, whereas the alleged proceeds of crime were stated to have arisen much later. The record also showed that the amount said to represent the proceeds of crime had already been secured in the criminal court by way of fixed deposits. In such circumstances, attachment of a property worth far in excess of the alleged proceeds of crime was held to be unwarranted and abusive of the statutory power, since the attachment mechanism is meant to secure proceeds of crime and not to impose a punitive burden on a third property unrelated to the alleged tainted funds.
Conclusion: The attachment of the appellant's property could not be sustained and was liable to be lifted.
Issue (ii): Whether the attachment order and the adjudication under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 suffered from non-compliance with the statutory procedure and lack of application of mind.
Analysis: The order was found to have been made mechanically, without proper consideration of the documents, statements, arbitration findings and the statutory safeguards under the Act. The material on record did not show a proper investigation linking the appellant with laundering of the alleged proceeds of crime, and the statutory process for provisional attachment and adjudication was not followed in the manner required. The burden under the Act was treated as having been rebutted by the appellant's showing that the alleged loss itself was unsupported and that the property attached was not traceable to the alleged crime proceeds.
Conclusion: The impugned attachment and adjudication were unsustainable for want of compliance with the statutory scheme and for non-application of mind.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the provisional attachment and consequential complaint were quashed in relation to the appellant, and the residential property was directed to be released.
Ratio Decidendi: A property cannot validly be provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 unless it is shown to be proceeds of crime or otherwise lawfully liable to be secured under the statutory scheme, and the attachment must be proportionate, procedurally compliant, and based on applied consideration of the relevant material.
TaxTMI 
