Money laundering provisions allow attachment of crime proceeds even when held by non-accused persons under Section 8(3)(a)

The Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging provisional attachment of property under money laundering provisions. The appellant received Rs. 2,07,25,500 allegedly for legal services but failed to substantiate this claim with evidence. The Tribunal held that proceeds of crime can be attached even when held by non-accused persons, as the attachment targets the proceeds rather than the individual. The 365-day investigation period under Section 8(3)(a) excludes interim court order periods, and attachment is permissible regardless of whether the property holder is named as accused in the FIR or ECIR.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is justified when the appellant is not named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR.
• Whether the funds received by the appellant can be considered proceeds of crime or legitimate professional fees and donations.
• Whether the provisional attachment order lapses if the prosecution complaint is not filed within 365 days.
• Whether the attachment of property is permissible from a person not named as an accused.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Property Attachment

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The attachment was made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant argued that the attachment was unjustified as he was not named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal noted that the appellant was a recipient of proceeds of crime, and the attachment was justified even if he was not named as an accused.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal found no evidence of professional services provided by the appellant to justify the receipt of funds.
• Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal applied the Act's provisions, emphasizing that attachment could occur even if the recipient is not an accused.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument of legitimate professional fees was rejected due to lack of evidence.
• Conclusions: The attachment was upheld as the funds were deemed proceeds of crime.

Issue 2: Lapse of Provisional Attachment Order

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 8(3)(a) of the Act provides for continuance of attachment during investigation or proceedings.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal held that the period of interim court orders is excluded from the 365-day limit.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal noted the existence of interim orders from higher courts.
• Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal concluded that the attachment did not lapse due to the exclusion of interim order periods.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument for lapse was rejected based on statutory interpretation.
• Conclusions: The attachment order did not lapse and remained valid.

Issue 3: Attachment from Non-Accused Persons

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, which allows attachment from non-accused persons.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The tribunal emphasized that attachment is focused on proceeds of crime, irrespective of the holder's accused status.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The tribunal found the appellant in possession of proceeds of crime, justifying attachment.
• Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal applied the interpretation that attachment can occur from any person holding proceeds of crime.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument was dismissed, as the law allows attachment from non-accused holders of proceeds of crime.
• Conclusions: The tribunal upheld the attachment from the appellant, a non-accused person.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The attachment of property from third party can be when the accused involved in predicate offence has parked it with such person or it was arranged in such a manner where proceeds of crime may not remain in the hands of the accused so as to be attached but to be kept with other person not involved in the crime."
• Core Principles Established: The tribunal established that attachment under the Act can be justified even if the recipient of proceeds of crime is not named as an accused. The attachment order remains valid beyond 365 days if interim court orders exist.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the attachment of properties as proceeds of crime.

---