Retrospective time-limit amendment and pending confiscation complaint did not unsettle attachment confirmation under the money-laundering regime.

An amendment introducing a 90-day time-limit for filing the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was held not to apply to attachment confirmation orders already passed before the amendment, because the text contained no express retrospective indication and the accrued position under the unamended regime was preserved. Where the prosecution complaint had already been filed during the pendency of the challenge, the attachment was also treated as continuing, since releasing the property at that stage would interfere with the pending confiscation process. The confirmation of attachment was therefore sustained, subject to any later lawful claim if the properties were ultimately found not to be proceeds of crime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended time-limit under section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 governed confirmation orders passed before the amendment came into force. (ii) Whether the appeal became infructuous or the attachment deserved to be set aside after the prosecution complaint had already been filed during the pendency of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the amended time-limit under section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 governed confirmation orders passed before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The attachment had been confirmed before the amendment introduced the 90-day period for filing the prosecution complaint. The amended provision was held not to contain any express indication that it would apply to earlier attachment or confirmation orders. In the absence of such clarification, the right accruing to the enforcement authority under the unamended regime was treated as continuing, and the amendment was held not to take away that accrued right retrospectively.

Conclusion: The amended time-limit did not govern the impugned confirmation order, and the appellant was not entitled to relief on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal became infructuous or the attachment deserved to be set aside after the prosecution complaint had already been filed during the pendency of the appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution complaint had already been filed and the attached properties were shown as properties liable for confiscation. On that basis, the Tribunal held that release of the properties at that stage would interfere with the pending trial and frustrate the confiscation process. The earlier orders relied on for parity were distinguished because, in those matters, the prosecution complaint had not been filed before disposal of the appeals.

Conclusion: The appeal did not survive for allowing the attachment to be lifted, and the challenge failed on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was sustained, and the appellant was left to pursue any lawful claim over the properties if they were ultimately found not to be proceeds of crime.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment introducing a statutory time-limit will not be applied to unsettle confirmation orders already passed before the amendment, absent clear legislative intent, and an attachment may be retained where the prosecution complaint has already been filed and confiscation remains to be determined in the criminal process.

---