PMLA provisional attachment can reach equivalent-value property when reasons to believe are recorded on material in possession.

Under the PMLA, "proceeds of crime" has wide amplitude and can include equivalent-value property, so the fact that property was acquired before the scheduled offence does not by itself defeat provisional attachment. A valid attachment also depends on the authorised officer recording written reasons to believe on the basis of material in possession, and the order here was treated as sufficiently reasoned and provisional in nature. The first proviso to Section 5(1) and the forwarding requirement under Section 5(2) were viewed as satisfied on the facts, with a short delay caused by holidays not treated as fatal. Disputed facts and the statutory adjudication remedy weighed against writ interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property acquired before the scheduled offence and otherwise claimed to be untainted could be provisionally attached as proceeds of crime; (ii) whether the provisional attachment order was without jurisdiction for want of recorded reasons to believe under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (iii) whether there was non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 5(1) and the forwarding requirement under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (iv) whether interference was warranted despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the disputed factual matrix.

Issue (i): Whether property acquired before the scheduled offence and otherwise claimed to be untainted could be provisionally attached as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The expression "proceeds of crime" was held to be of wide amplitude. The definition in Section 2(1)(u) covers not only property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also the value of such property. The Court treated the later judicial exposition as making clear that the provision can reach equivalent-value property and that the restrictive view excluding such attachment could not be accepted. The earlier contrary understanding was held to be no longer good law in view of the later authoritative interpretation.

Conclusion: The challenge to attachment on the ground that the properties were acquired before the scheduled offence failed and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment order was without jurisdiction for want of recorded reasons to believe under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 5(1) requires recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession, and on scrutiny of the attachment order found that such reasons had in fact been recorded in writing. The order referred to search material, alleged layering of funds, fake documents, and other circumstances supporting the statutory satisfaction. The order was described as provisional and subject to adjudication, which further supported the validity of the action at this stage.

Conclusion: The attachment order was not invalid for want of reasons to believe and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether there was non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 5(1) and the forwarding requirement under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court held that filing of a final report in every predicate FIR was not a sine qua non for provisional attachment and that Section 5(1) is attracted where the person is in possession of proceeds of crime likely to be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. It further held that the first proviso stood satisfied on the facts, including the existence of a complaint by an authorised person and the material connecting the petitioner with the alleged illegal mining and laundering activity. As to forwarding of the order and material, the requirement of immediate transmission was construed reasonably, and a short interval caused by closure of offices on holidays was not treated as fatal.

Conclusion: No breach of the first proviso or the forwarding requirement was found, and the objection failed.

Issue (iv): Whether interference was warranted despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the disputed factual matrix.

Analysis: The Court noted that the attachment was only provisional and that the adjudicating authority under the statute was to examine the matter in the first instance. The presence of disputed questions of fact, together with the statutory remedy and the limited stage of the proceedings, militated against writ interference. The existence of an alternative remedy did not make the writ petition non-maintainable, but it was a relevant factor against granting relief on merits.

Conclusion: No writ interference was warranted on these facts.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed in its entirety, and the petitions were dismissed while leaving the adjudicating authority free to decide the matter independently in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, "proceeds of crime" includes equivalent-value property, and a provisional attachment is sustainable where the authorised officer records reasons to believe on the basis of material in possession that such property is liable to be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation.

---