Proceeds of crime attachment sustained where claimed lawful income was unproved and family assets could still be attached.

Attachment under the anti-money laundering statute was sustained because the material showed that the disputed assets and expenditure formed part of the proceeds of crime assessment, and the claimed lawful income was not proved by reliable records. Mere bank withdrawals were not treated as income, uncorroborated self-prepared statements could not override the investigation record, and acquisition costs such as share purchase, registration charges and stamp duty properly counted on the expenditure side. Family members' assets could still be attached even though they were not separately arraigned in the predicate offence, and substitution of the attached properties by reference to the hotel asset and its bank liability was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was liable to be set aside on the grounds that the family members' income was not properly considered, that withdrawals and alleged loans should be treated as income, that expenditure and valuation figures were overstated, that properties standing in the names of family members could not be attached, and that the hotel property should be released or adjusted against the alleged outstanding bank liability.

Analysis: For determining disproportionate assets, the relevant exercise is to assess the total acquisitions and expenditure of the public servant and his family during the check period and then compare the same with proved lawful income. Mere bank withdrawals do not constitute income, and uncorroborated self-prepared statements cannot displace the investigation record or the chargesheet material. The family members' income was not supported by income-tax returns or reliable proof of net available income. The amounts spent on share purchase, registration charges, stamp duty, and other acquisition-related expenses formed part of the expenditure side and could not be excluded to confer a double benefit. The entries reflected in the attachment order were found to be justified on the material collected in investigation. The fact that family members were not separately arrayed as accused in the predicate offence did not prevent attachment under the statute, since the essential requirements are the commission of the predicate offence, generation of proceeds of crime, and availability of those proceeds in the hands of the accused or associates. The suggested substitution of the attached properties by reference to the hotel asset and its bank liability was also rejected, as the shareholder structure and valuation material did not warrant release of the attached properties.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confirmed attachment failed and the attachment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment can be sustained where the material shows proceeds of crime are available with the accused or associates, and unsupported claims of lawful income, withdrawals, or alternative asset valuation do not dislodge a reasoned attachment based on investigation record.

---