Proceeds of crime under PMLA cannot include assets already accounted for in disproportionate assets computation without separate proof of criminal derivation.

Property already included in the computation of disproportionate assets cannot be treated as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 unless it is separately shown to have been derived from criminal activity. The attachment had been based on a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the immovable properties were already taken into account while assessing the assets of the respondent's husband. As no independent finding linked those properties to criminal proceeds, the Delhi HC held that they were legitimate assets and not liable to attachment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's immovable properties could be treated as proceeds of crime and attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The attachment order was founded on a disproportionate assets prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The properties in question were part of the assets already taken into account while determining the disproportionate assets of the respondent's husband. No separate finding identified those properties as assets derived from criminal activity. The disproportionality was worked out by comparing the assets at the end of the check period with the income that could be satisfactorily accounted for, and the balance represented legitimate assets, not proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The respondent's properties could not be treated as proceeds of crime and were not liable to attachment under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Property already accounted for in the computation of disproportionate assets, and not specifically shown to be derived from criminal activity, cannot be attached as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---