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 attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be sustained where the predicate offences included offences covered by the amended Schedule and the total proceeds involved exceeded the statutory threshold. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment orders were vitiated for want of pre-decisional hearing, cross-examination, or absence of adequate reasons to believe. (iii) Whether properties standing in the name of a person not separately charged with the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime.
Issue (i): Whether the attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be sustained where the predicate offences included offences covered by the amended Schedule and the total proceeds involved exceeded the statutory threshold.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats "proceeds of crime" as property derived from a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, and "scheduled offence" includes offences in Part B only where the value involved meets the prescribed threshold. The offences alleged against the appellants included section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was already scheduled, and the charge-sheet filed after the amendment also included section 420 and section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Tribunal held that the relevant attachment action was taken after the offences stood covered by the Schedule, and that the proceeds were generated over a period of time from repeated transactions. The total sale consideration was held to be far above the threshold, so the plea that the case involved only a single transaction of Rs. 15,000/- was rejected.
Conclusion: The attachment proceedings were held maintainable and the appellants failed on the challenge to the applicability of the Act.
Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment orders were vitiated for want of pre-decisional hearing, cross-examination, or absence of adequate reasons to believe.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that provisional attachment under section 5 is an emergent, protective measure intended to preserve property pending adjudication, and the Act contemplates a full post-attachment adjudicatory hearing under section 8. On that scheme, no prior hearing was required before passing the provisional attachment orders. The request for cross-examination was found to have been made in general terms, without identifying specific witnesses or the necessity for such cross-examination, and the application was not pressed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal also accepted that the authority had material before it to form the requisite belief that the properties were proceeds of crime likely to be concealed or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation.
Conclusion: The challenge based on natural justice and absence of reasons to believe was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether properties standing in the name of a person not separately charged with the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the interpretation that section 5 is directed against the proceeds of crime and not merely against the person charged with the scheduled offence. Where property is shown to be derived from scheduled criminal activity and is in possession of any person, attachment is permissible if the statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied. The Tribunal relied on the legislative scheme and prior authority to hold that limiting attachment only to the accused would defeat the purpose of the Act.
Conclusion: Properties held in the name of such persons were held liable to attachment.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the provisional attachment orders as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority were left undisturbed. Attachment under the Act was upheld as a valid protective measure against proceeds of crime.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisional attachment can be sustained when the authority has material to believe that property represents proceeds of crime, the person is in possession of such property, and the statutory safeguards are met; the scheme permits post-attachment adjudication and does not require a pre-decisional hearing or prior cross-examination as a condition for validity.
TaxTMI 
