Provisional attachment upheld where documentary and testimonial material provide prima facie reasons to believe proceeds of crime.

Provisional attachment of immovable properties alleged to be proceeds of crime was challenged; the tribunal summarises that the Adjudicating Authority relied on documentary and testimonial materials - agreements, bank payments predating claimed loans, absence of credible loan documentation, repayments routed through appellant-controlled concern, and corroborative statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. - to record prima facie reasons to believe involvement in money laundering including concealment and layering. The appellate body declined to reappreciate the evidence on merits where explanations were contradictory or insufficient, and the confirmation of attachment was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in confirming the provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 of immovable properties purchased jointly in the name of the appellant and Nand Lal HUF on the basis that such properties constitute proceeds of crime and were involved in money laundering.

Analysis: The appeal challenges confirmation of attachment under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Adjudicating Authority's order under Sections 8(1)/8(2). The material considered includes agreements, bank payments and statements recorded under the PMLA/Cr.P.C., evidence of payments to the vendor predating claimed loans, inconsistent and unexplained transactions relating to Nand Lal HUF and Rajendra Kumar, and statements implicating the appellant in receipt/receipt-routing of alleged illegal gratification. The record shows payments for the property made through earlier cheques and banking entries, absence of credible documentation for purported loans and IVPs/KVPs, repayments routed through the appellant-controlled concern, corroborative statements by accused persons recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., and the linkages asserted by the Enforcement Directorate and investigation reports indicating concealment and layering of alleged proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority evaluated these materials and concluded that there were prima facie reasons to believe the properties were involved in money laundering and continued the attachment. The Appellate Tribunal declined to reappreciate the evidence on merits where the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion was supported by the documentary and testimonial material on record and where the appellant's explanations were found contradictory or insufficient to dispel the reasons to believe recorded in the file.

Conclusion: The confirmation of provisional attachment by the Adjudicating Authority is upheld; the appeal against the attachment is dismissed and the attachment of the specified immovable properties is maintained in favour of the Respondent.

---