PMLA attachment cannot survive when predicate offence proceedings end and provisional confirmation lapses in law.

Attachment of movable and immovable properties under PMLA could not be continued once the predicate offence complaint had been withdrawn, the closure report accepted, and the ECIR proceedings quashed, because the foundation for treating the assets as proceeds of crime had ceased. The Court also treated the provisional attachment as having lapsed, since the confirmation complaint had been dropped and the scheme governing provisional attachment is time-bound. On those facts, no subsisting attachment survived in law, and the properties were directed to be released.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment and seizure of the petitioners' movable and immovable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be continued after the predicate offence had been closed and the ECIR proceedings had been quashed. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment had lapsed for want of subsisting confirmation proceedings and expiry of the statutory period.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment and seizure of the petitioners' movable and immovable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be continued after the predicate offence had been closed and the ECIR proceedings had been quashed.

Analysis: The attachment proceedings were founded on the scheduled offences in the FIR. The predicate complaint had been withdrawn, the closure report had been accepted, and the ECIR proceedings had already been quashed by the Court. Once the foundational criminal case no longer survived, the basis for treating the properties as involved in money laundering and as proceeds of crime ceased to exist. A mere stated intention to challenge the earlier order could not justify retention of the attached properties.

Conclusion: The continuation of attachment and seizure was unsustainable and the petitioners were entitled to release of the properties.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment had lapsed for want of subsisting confirmation proceedings and expiry of the statutory period.

Analysis: The provisional attachment was issued under the statutory scheme governing provisional attachment, which is time-bound. The record showed that the complaint filed for confirmation of the provisional attachment had been dropped. In the absence of confirmation and in view of the statutory limitation on the life of a provisional attachment, the attachment could not survive. The Court treated the attachment as having ceased to operate.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment had lapsed and no attachment subsisted over the subject properties.

Final Conclusion: The enforcement action could not be maintained once the predicate offence proceedings had ended and the attachment had lapsed in law, so the properties were directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the foundation of money-laundering proceedings disappears and the provisional attachment is not sustained within the statutory framework, the attached properties cannot be retained.

---