Money-laundering attachment sustained where inflated circulation claims and unsupported valuation challenges failed to displace traced fund flows.

Attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was sustained because the alleged inflation of newspaper circulation figures was supported by traced advertisement receipts, bank transfers and recorded statements, while the appellants failed to produce material showing actual circulation or corresponding printing inputs. The challenge to valuation also failed: the tribunal applied the statutory concept of value as fair market value on the relevant acquisition date, or possession date if necessary, and found no material to show a lower market value or that the attachment exceeded the alleged proceeds of crime. The appeal was dismissed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the attachment was sustainable on the basis that the circulation figures of the newspaper were inflated to obtain higher advertisement receipts and thereby generate proceeds of crime; (ii) whether the value of the attached properties was wrongly assessed or excessive in relation to the alleged proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): whether the attachment was sustainable on the basis that the circulation figures of the newspaper were inflated to obtain higher advertisement receipts and thereby generate proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The allegation was that the declared circulation figures were far higher than the actual circulation and that the inflated figures enabled the appellants to secure advertisement payments at enhanced rates. The record showed receipt of substantial advertisement amounts and subsequent transfers to other entities, while the appellants failed to produce material to support the declared circulation figures or to show procurement of printing material commensurate with such circulation. In investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the recorded statements and bank transactions were relied upon to trace the flow of funds and the use of the amounts received.

Conclusion: The attachment on this basis was upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Issue (ii): whether the value of the attached properties was wrongly assessed or excessive in relation to the alleged proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The definition of value under section 2(zb) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 requires reference to the fair market value on the date of acquisition, or if that cannot be determined, the date of possession. The impugned order recorded unexplained transactions and identified immovable and movable properties for which no satisfactory source of acquisition was shown. The appellants did not place material to demonstrate a different market value on the relevant date or to establish that the attachment exceeded the proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The valuation challenge was rejected and the attachment was held not to be excessive.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was sustained in full and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellants fail to substantiate declared business figures or the source and fair market value of the attached assets, and the record supports tracing of funds to the alleged unlawful gain, the attachment cannot be interfered with.

---