Pre-acquisition properties may still face money-laundering attachment where proceeds of crime cannot be traced

Properties acquired before the alleged offence period are not automatically immune from action under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, because "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) includes property derived from criminal activity and its value where the tainted asset cannot be traced. The Tribunal found that pre-acquisition movable and immovable assets could still be proceeded against if the accused retained an interest in them during the criminal activity, and that a bare assertion of lawful acquisition was insufficient without evidence. On that basis, the attachment was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be set aside on the ground that the properties were acquired before the alleged period of offence and were not shown to be linked to proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the attachment of movable and immovable properties on the basis that they were acquired from lawful sources and prior to the alleged criminal activity. The Tribunal considered the statutory definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, which covers property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity and also the value of such property. Relying on the legal position that properties acquired prior to the enforcement of the Act are not automatically immune and may be proceeded against where the tainted property cannot be traced, the Tribunal held that such pre-acquisition assets can be subjected to action if the accused retained an interest in them during the period of criminal activity. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's claim of lawful acquisition required evidence and could not dislodge the attachment at this stage.

Conclusion: The attachment was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

---