Proceeds of crime attachment upheld where bank accounts lacked proof of lawful source and statements linked funds to illegal activity.

Attachment of bank accounts as proceeds of crime was sustained because the appellant failed to prove a lawful source of the funds. The claimed loan and repayment story was unsupported by bank statements or other documentary evidence, and the asserted dividend income from HUF shares was likewise unverified, with no records of shareholding, dividend receipts, or company details produced. The Tribunal also relied on the appellant's Section 50 statement under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, in which control over the concerned companies and cash use linked to the predicate offences was acknowledged. On these facts, the challenge to the attachment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the attachment of the appellant's bank accounts as proceeds of crime was liable to be interfered with in view of the explanation offered for the source of funds.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the appellant had established a credible source for the sums lying in the attached bank accounts. The explanation regarding a loan transaction and later repayment was found unsupported by bank statements or other documentary material showing the alleged advancement of funds and their return. The explanation regarding dividend income from shares of the HUF was also unsupported, as no record of the shareholding, dividend receipts, or the concerned company details was produced. The Tribunal also relied on the appellant's statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, in which he acknowledged control over the concerned companies and the use of cash for expenses linked to the person involved in the predicate offences. These circumstances were treated as sufficient to connect the funds with illegal activity and to reject the claim of lawful source.

Conclusion: The attachment of the bank accounts was upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---