Provisional attachment of Rs 84 crore properties upheld; equivalent assets, Section 50 statements, limitation objections all rejected
AT upheld the provisional attachment of properties valued at about Rs. 84 crores, holding that where proceeds of crime are laundered or untraceable, properties of equivalent value, even acquired prior to the scheduled offence, may be attached, provided efforts are first made to attach the actual proceeds of crime. It found that the attached property, though in the name of the appellant's spouse, was not independently acquired as she had no means of purchase. Objections regarding limitation of 180 days and evidentiary value of statements under Section 50 of the 2002 Act were rejected. Finding no merit in any contention, AT dismissed the appeals.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Provisional Attachment Order ceased to have effect because the Adjudicating Authority confirmed it after 180 days under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, taking into account the period affected by COVID-19.
2. Whether statements recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of the Act, including those recorded while the deponent was in custody, are inadmissible or incapable of grounding confirmation of provisional attachment.
3. Whether immovable properties acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be provisionally attached as "proceeds of crime" or as property of equivalent value when the direct proceeds are not traceable.
4. Whether the materials on record (statements and documents) suffice to sustain confirmation of the provisional attachment to the extent of the properties identified.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Effect of Delay beyond 180 Days and Applicability of COVID-19 Limitation Exclusions
Legal framework: Section 5(1)-(3) (attachment, forwarding material to Adjudicating Authority, and cessation after 180 days) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 prescribes a maximum 180-day period for provisional attachment to continue absent confirmation; provisos allow exclusion of period when proceedings are stayed by High Court and prescribe related procedural steps.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's orders in the Suo Motu limitation proceedings (extending/excluding limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) and subsequent elucidations (including Prakash Corporates) and relied on High Court decisions (including Telangana High Court reasoning) that held those orders applicable to compute statutory outer limits where a statute prescribes termination/outer limits of proceedings.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished between (a) protection of commencement of remedies (institution of proceedings) that the Suo Motu orders primarily sought to secure, and (b) statutory timelines that operate as termination or outer limits (such as the 180-day ceiling in Section 5(3)). It accepted authorities holding that where a statute prescribes a maximum period within which an action must be completed, the period affected by COVID-19 is to be excluded in computing that maximum. The Tribunal reasoned that the Suo Motu orders were meant to safeguard litigants from being barred by limitation and their scope was expanded to include exclusion for termination limits; consequently, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded while computing the 180 days under Section 5(3).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - exclusion of the COVID-affected period applies to computation of the 180-day outer limit under Section 5(3) where the Supreme Court's orders expressly exclude periods for termination/outer limits of proceedings; Obiter - commentary distinguishing urgency of personal liberty (S. Kasi) from property-related timelines.
Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contention of lapse under Section 5(3) because the intervening COVID-19 period is excluded; the confirmation was not time-barred.
Issue 2 - Admissibility and Reliance on Statements under Section 50(2) & (3)
Legal framework: Section 50(2) and (3) of the Act permit recording of statements of persons during investigation; general evidentiary principles govern admissibility and weight, with safeguards against statements made under duress.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed prior practice that statements recorded under Section 50 provisions are admissible and can be read against the deponent; absence of allegation of coercion or duress undermines an attack on admissibility.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted no allegation that statements were recorded under coercion or harassment, no contemporaneous complaint of unfair recording, and that the appellant's recorded statements contained admissions (relations with directors, entries in software, sums received by group entities). Co-accused statements corroborated the investigative narrative. Accordingly, reliance on those statements to found provisional attachment was permissible.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statements under Section 50(2)/(3) are admissible and may be relied upon unless shown to be recorded under duress; Obiter - amplification of the probative value where statements are corroborated by documents and other witnesses.
Conclusion: The challenge to the use of Section 50 statements failed; the Adjudicating Authority properly considered those statements as admissible material supporting attachment.
Issue 3 - Attachment of Property Acquired Prior to the Scheduled Offence ("Proceeds of Crime" / Equivalent Value)
Legal framework: Definition of "proceeds of crime" (Section 2(1)(u)) contains multiple limbs: (i) property derived/obtained directly or indirectly by criminal activity; (ii) the value of any such property (attachment of property of equivalent value); (iii) property equivalent in value held within country/abroad where property is taken or held outside country. Section 5 permits attachment of proceeds or property of equivalent value where proceeds are not available.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on binding Supreme Court authority and High Court reasoning (including Axis Bank and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary discussions) that interpret Section 2(1)(u) as comprising three distinct limbs and permitting attachment of untainted property of equivalent value when tainted proceeds are not traceable; it rejected authorities construing the definition narrowly so as to render the middle limb redundant.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that giving effect to the second limb is necessary to prevent accused from rendering tainted proceeds untraceable and defeating enforcement. The statutory purpose (preventing laundering and securing victim interests) and precedents mandate that property acquired prior to the offence can be attached as equivalent value where proceeds have been siphoned off or are not available, subject to safeguards protecting bona fide third-party rights and the primacy of attempting to attach actual proceeds first.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - properties acquired prior to commission of scheduled offences can be attached as property of equivalent value under Section 2(1)(u) where proceeds are not traceable, provided statutory safeguards and assessment of equivalence are observed; Obiter - commentary on policy rationale and rejection of narrower readings that would nullify the second limb.
Conclusion: Attachment of pre-offence properties was permissible in principle; accordingly, attachment of properties in this matter could be sustained because (i) proceeds in the accused's hands were not fully traceable, and (ii) the Adjudicating Authority attached properties of equivalent value after consideration of available material.
Issue 4 - Sufficiency of Record to Confirm Attachment to the Extent Ordered
Legal framework: Confirmation requires prima facie material showing reason to believe proceeds of crime exist and are liable to attachment; investigative records, statements, balance sheets and valuations relevant to quantification and nexus.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referenced principles requiring an initial assessment or tentative valuation to justify attachment of deemed tainted property and that enforcement should first attempt to attach directly traceable proceeds.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the record contained incriminating documents seized in searches, ECIR, FIR, recorded statements (including admissions of receipt/transfer of large sums by group entities), and financial statements indicating substantial deposits and loans that were advanced to 13 entities connected to the accused and remained unpaid. The appellant failed to produce contrary documentary evidence displacing the inference of siphoning/vanishing of proceeds. The attached immovable properties' aggregate market valuation corresponded to the attached amount (approx. Rs.84.40 crores) though the Tribunal noted that proceeds in accused's hands might exceed attached amount.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where investigative material and admissions establish a prima facie case of diversion of depositor funds to associated entities and inability to repay, confirmation of provisional attachment of identified properties of equivalent value is supportable; Obiter - emphasis on necessity of attempting to trace actual proceeds first and protection of bona fide third-party interests.
Conclusion: The material on record was sufficient to sustain confirmation of provisional attachment as made; the appellants' arguments on insufficiency and on specific lower quantum (e.g., only Rs.10 crores relating to a loan to spouse) did not displace the prima facie case. Appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
