Proceeds of Crime Nexus Limits repeated attachment and unsupported beneficial-ownership claims under anti-money laundering law

Attachment under the money-laundering regime must rest on a sustainable nexus to identifiable proceeds of crime, and the Tribunal found the mining-lease record did not justify treating all impugned amounts as tainted at the attachment stage. It also held that where the same value had already been attached in one entity's hands, repeated attachment through downstream entities would amount to impermissible double or triple attachment. Share application money and ordinary salary receipts could not, on the material before it, be treated as proceeds of crime merely because of group-company links or beneficial ownership claims. The common order was therefore substantially modified, with only limited security retained and the remaining attachments released.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the attachment could be sustained on the basis of the alleged proceeds of crime arising from the mining lease and subsequent share transactions, including the plea of retrospectivity under the money-laundering regime; (ii) whether the attachments of shares, dividends, share application money, salaries and related assets amounted to impermissible double or triple attachment or could be sustained on a beneficial ownership theory.

Issue (i): whether the attachment could be sustained on the basis of the alleged proceeds of crime arising from the mining lease and subsequent share transactions, including the plea of retrospectivity under the money-laundering regime?

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the mining-lease process, the prior prospecting history, the notification and revision proceedings, the ministerial approval, the report of the inquiry commission, and the contention that the transactions were genuine business transactions rather than tainted receipts. It also considered the objection that the scheduled offences were added later and that the money-laundering provisions could not be applied retrospectively to earlier events. On the facts, the Tribunal found that the decision-making process for grant of the mining lease could not be summarily branded illegal at the attachment stage and that the record did not justify a conclusive finding that all impugned amounts were proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The attachment could not be fully sustained on this basis, and the appellants succeeded to the extent indicated in the operative part.

Issue (ii): whether the attachments of shares, dividends, share application money, salaries and related assets amounted to impermissible double or triple attachment or could be sustained on a beneficial ownership theory?

Analysis: The Tribunal held that where the value attributable to the alleged proceeds of crime had already been separately attached in the hands of one entity, further attachment of the same value in downstream entities would amount to double or triple attachment. It also found that share application money and remuneration earned in the ordinary course of employment could not, on the material before it, be treated as proceeds of crime merely because of group-company links or a beneficial ownership theory. The Tribunal further found that several attachments were excessive or unsupported by specific allegations and required modification.

Conclusion: The attachments on these counts were set aside or modified in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The common order was modified substantially, with only a limited amount kept under protective security by way of bank guarantee, and the remaining attachments were released; the appeals were partly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment must rest on a sustainable nexus to identifiable proceeds of crime, and the same value cannot be attached repeatedly through downstream entities or unsupported beneficial-ownership claims.

---