Reasonable belief standard for provisional attachment upheld; appellants must rebut ED's material to displace confirmation.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is supportable where the enforcement agency forms a reasonable belief as to (i) commission of the predicate offence, (ii) generation and quantum of proceeds of crime, and (iii) availability of those proceeds with accused or associates; the decision explains application of that reasonable belief standard and the method for computing disproportionate assets over the check period. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to produce corroborative documentary evidence to rebut the material relied on (bank records, CA verification, investigation reports), upheld valuation and inclusion decisions challenged by appellants, and affirmed confirmation of the provisional attachments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Orders (PAO Nos. 04/2017 and 03/2020) attaching the immovable properties listed in Table I and Table II and SCO no.2, Sector-10D, Chandigarh.

Analysis: The appeals arise under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and challenge confirmation of provisional attachments effected by the Enforcement Directorate. The statutory scheme permits provisional attachment where the Authority forms a reasonable belief regarding (i) commission of predicate offence, (ii) generation and quantum of proceeds of crime, and (iii) availability of such proceeds in the hands of accused or associates. The Tribunal examined the materials relied on by the ED including investigation reports, bank entries, CA verification, show cause notices and the police chargesheet and evaluated the appellants' contentions that various receipts, withdrawals, loans, share purchases and departmental intimations constituted legitimate sources or reduced the alleged disproportionate assets. The Tribunal applied the legal test of reasonable belief and the method for calculating disproportionate assets over the check period, noting that withdrawals alone do not constitute income and that the appellants failed to produce corroborative evidence (such as ITRs or authenticated proofs) to substantiate claimed legitimate sources. The Tribunal also addressed arguments on valuation, inclusion/exclusion of certain expenditures and the presence of bank loans against attached hotel property, concluding that shareholders' limited share subscriptions and lack of proof for claimed expenditure meant the ED's conclusions were not displaced. The Tribunal found the three statutory conditions for attachment satisfied on the material before the Adjudicating Authority and that the appellants had not rebutted the reasonable belief forming the basis of confirmation of PAOs.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the provisional attachment orders is upheld and the appeals are dismissed; decision in favour of the Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Enforcement Directorate, on available materials, forms a reasonable belief as to (i) commission of predicate offence, (ii) generation and quantum of proceeds of crime, and (iii) availability of such proceeds with the accused or associates, the Adjudicating Authority may lawfully confirm provisional attachments unless the appellants discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut that reasonable belief.

---