Proceeds of crime nexus was not established, so attachment of the house property under money laundering law failed.

Attachment of the house property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was unsustainable because the record did not establish that it represented proceeds of crime. The appellant was not shown to be an accused in the criminal case or prosecution complaint, the payments for the property were made before the alleged laundering mechanism came into operation, and no bank records or other material connected the property to tainted funds. In the absence of the required nexus between the property and the alleged offence, the attachment could not be maintained and was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the attachment of the house property was sustainable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that it represented proceeds of crime and was involved in money laundering.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the appellant was not an accused in the criminal case or prosecution complaint, and the record did not establish that the property was acquired from tainted funds. The payments for the property were shown to have been made before the alleged laundering mechanism came into operation, and the respondent did not produce bank records or other material to connect the property with proceeds of crime. In these circumstances, the necessary nexus between the property and the alleged offence was not made out for sustaining attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment of the property was not justified and was liable to be set aside.

---