Money-laundering attachment challenge upheld as maintainable, while limitation objection to prosecution complaint failed after amendment

An amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 was treated as operating from 19.04.2018 for computing the time limit to file a prosecution complaint under the money-laundering regime, so a complaint filed within 90 days from that date was not time-barred and the provisional attachment did not lapse on that ground. The appellants were also held to have locus standi to challenge confirmation of provisional attachment because the Adjudicating Authority had recorded adverse prima facie findings against them, making them persons aggrieved even though the attached properties were not in their names. The limitation objection failed, the maintainability objection was rejected, and the confirmation of attachment remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution complaint filed after confirmation of provisional attachment was barred by limitation and whether the attachment had lapsed. (ii) Whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the order confirming provisional attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution complaint filed after confirmation of provisional attachment was barred by limitation and whether the attachment had lapsed.

Analysis: The amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 was held to operate from 19.04.2018, and the time limit for filing the prosecution complaint was treated as commencing from that date. The legislative intent was to allow the Enforcement Directorate reasonable time to file prosecution, and the amendment was not treated as retrospectively extinguishing existing attachments. Since the complaint was filed within 90 days from 19.04.2018, no illegality was found in the continued attachment.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the appellants were not entitled to release of the attached properties on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the order confirming provisional attachment.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority had recorded adverse prima facie findings against the appellants, including that they had committed the scheduled offences and generated proceeds of crime. In that context, they were persons aggrieved for the purpose of appeal under the statute, even if the attached properties did not stand in their names. Their challenge to the confirmation order was therefore maintainable.

Conclusion: The appellants had locus standi to maintain the appeals.

Final Conclusion: The challenge on limitation was rejected, the maintainability objection was overruled, and the confirmation of provisional attachment remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory time limit introduced by amendment for filing a prosecution complaint under the money-laundering regime operates from the date the amendment comes into force, and a person against whom adverse findings are recorded by the Adjudicating Authority is a person aggrieved entitled to appeal.

---