Money-laundering attachment can stand without naming the person in the charge-sheet, and prior CBI seizure does not bar it.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment can be sustained even where the person is not named in the CBI charge-sheet or prosecution complaint, because the decisive factor is involvement with proceeds of crime. The Directorate's valuation of the immovable property was upheld on the basis of the appellant's section 50 statement and documentary indications of cash payment, rather than the sale deed alone. The limitation objection under section 8(3)(a) failed on the filing chronology. Provisional attachment was also held valid despite the property's prior seizure by the CBI, and the recorded reasons in the attachment order were treated as sufficient. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be sustained against a person not named in the CBI charge-sheet or prosecution complaint. (ii) Whether the valuation of the attached immovable property could be based on the appellant's statement under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (iii) Whether the prosecution complaint was time-barred under section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (iv) Whether the provisional attachment was invalid for want of communicated reasons to believe and because the property was already seized by the CBI.

Issue (i): Whether attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be sustained against a person not named in the CBI charge-sheet or prosecution complaint.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits attachment of property involved in money-laundering wherever proceeds of crime are found, and the decisive factor is involvement in any process or activity connected with such proceeds. Naming in the scheduled offence charge-sheet is not a precondition for attachment under the Act.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation of the attached immovable property could be based on the appellant's statement under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant's own statement under section 50 supported the higher valuation adopted by the Directorate, and the purchase documents indicated cash payment. The registered sale deed alone was not treated as conclusive of the full consideration actually paid.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and the Directorate's valuation was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution complaint was time-barred under section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The complaint had been filed in 2016. On that chronology, the limitation objection lacked merit and did not invalidate the confirmation of attachment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether the provisional attachment was invalid for want of communicated reasons to believe and because the property was already seized by the CBI.

Analysis: The reasons for attachment were contained in the provisional attachment order, and section 8(1) was treated as not requiring the same form of recorded reasons as section 5(1). The property's prior seizure by the CBI did not bar attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, since seizure and attachment can coexist and the property may still need protection under the Act.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was sustained and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, attachment may be sustained against any person found in possession of proceeds of crime even if not named in the scheduled-offence prosecution, and a prior seizure by another authority does not prevent provisional attachment under the Act.

---