Money-laundering attachment upheld where bank trail and unexplained fund source linked properties to proceeds of crime.

Confirmed attachment remained sustainable where the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, supported by Section 50 statements and a bank trail, linked the funds used for acquisition and instalment payments to proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found that advance payments had been made before completion of the tender process, that the differential receipts were not satisfactorily explained as ordinary business profit, and that the flat and vehicles were traceable to tainted money. It also rejected the objection based on Section 164 CrPC statements because those statements were not the evidentiary basis of the attachment. The earlier connected order concerning a different property did not affect these appeals, and the attachment of the remaining four properties was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmed attachment of the remaining four properties was sustainable on the basis that the funds used for acquisition and repayment of instalments constituted proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The impugned attachment was examined on the basis of the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the statements recorded under Section 50 of that Act, and the bank trail linking the amounts received from the NRHM-related transactions to the properties in question. The Tribunal held that the earlier order in the connected matter concerning another property did not affect the present appeals, as that relief was confined to the flat standing in the name of a different person. On the material before it, the Tribunal found that advance payments had been made before the tender process was completed, that the differential amount received by the appellants' firms was not satisfactorily explained as ordinary business profit, and that the funds used for the flat and the two vehicles were traceable to tainted money. The objection regarding reliance on statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also rejected since those statements were not treated as the evidence forming the basis of the attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment of the remaining four properties was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the money-laundering attachment against the properties linked to the traced funds and declined to interfere with the adjudicating authority's order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the investigation establishes a direct money trail from criminal activity to identifiable assets, and the explanation of the source of funds is not satisfactory, the properties may be treated as involved in money laundering and remain liable to attachment under the Act.

---