PMLA attachment can extend to non-accused persons if property is linked to proceeds of crime; unrelied seized material must be returned.
Attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not limited to a person named as an accused in the scheduled offence; the ining test is whether the person is in possession of, or connected with, proceeds of crime, and the authority may rely on prima facie material showing generation, layering, dissipation, or concealment without re-investigating the predicate offence. On that basis, the challenge to retention proceedings was rejected. Unrelied seized documents and material were directed to be returned to the appellant, while material already relied upon in criminal proceedings could be retained pending those cases, with copies preserved for investigation.
Issues: (i) Whether property or seized material in the possession of a person not named as an accused in the scheduled offence can be retained or attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether unrelied seized documents and material are liable to be returned to the appellant.
Issue (i): Whether property or seized material in the possession of a person not named as an accused in the scheduled offence can be retained or attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The legal position applied was that attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not confined to an accused in the scheduled offence. The decisive consideration is whether the person is in possession of, or is connected with, proceeds of crime. The Tribunal also held that the Enforcement Directorate is not required to re-investigate the predicate offence, but may examine whether there is prima facie material showing generation, layering, dissipation, or concealment of proceeds of crime and the role of persons in possession of attached property.
Conclusion: The objection that the appellant was not named as an accused did not defeat the retention proceedings, and that contention was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether unrelied seized documents and material are liable to be returned to the appellant.
Analysis: The Tribunal directed that documents and seized material not relied upon by any investigating agency be released to the appellant, while preserving the authority of the Enforcement Directorate to retain copies for further investigation. It was also clarified that material already relied upon in any criminal case, chargesheet, or prosecution complaint would not be returned until conclusion of the case, and the appellant was required to furnish an affidavit regarding the authenticity of photocopies.
Conclusion: Unrelied seized material was directed to be returned, and relied-upon material was permitted to be retained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of return of unrelied seized material, while the challenge to the retention proceedings on merits was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, action may be taken against property or material in the hands of a person not named as an accused if it is connected with proceeds of crime, and unrelied seized material should be returned while relied-upon material may be retained for the pending proceedings.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
