PMLA Section 8(3)(a) requires investigation completion within 90 days of PAO confirmation, not prosecution complaints against every attached property owner

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeal challenging a Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA. The tribunal held that Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA requires investigation completion within 90 days of PAO confirmation, not prosecution complaints against every person whose property is attached. Since the original prosecution complaint was filed on 18.07.2018 before the PAO confirmation order dated 20.07.2018, statutory requirements were satisfied. The subsequent supplementary prosecution complaint naming the appellant did not invalidate the PAO, as the primary complaint had already been timely filed. The appeal was dismissed without merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Compliance with the statutory timeline for filing a Prosecution Complaint under Section 8(3) of PMLA.
3. Interpretation of Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA regarding the continuation of attachment during the investigation.
4. Impact of supplementary prosecution complaints on the validity of the PAO.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO):

The appeal challenged the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No.02/2018 dated 01.02.2018, which attached various properties and bank accounts associated with the appellant. The PAO was issued based on FIRs alleging misuse of bank accounts in connection with demonetization, leading to the attachment of assets under suspicion of money laundering activities. The tribunal examined whether the PAO was validly confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 20.07.2018, considering the circumstances under which the assets were attached.

2. Compliance with the Statutory Timeline for Filing a Prosecution Complaint:

The appellant contended that the Prosecution Complaint was not filed within the 90-day period stipulated by Section 8(3) of PMLA, as amended on 19.04.2018. The appellant argued that the PAO should lapse because the supplementary complaint naming him as an accused was filed only on 17.12.2018, beyond the 90-day timeline from the confirmation order dated 20.07.2018. The tribunal noted that the initial Prosecution Complaint was filed on 18.07.2018, before the confirmation of the PAO, thus meeting the statutory requirement. The tribunal emphasized that the law at the time required the investigation to be completed within 90 days, not necessarily naming the appellant in the initial complaint.

3. Interpretation of Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA:

The tribunal analyzed Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA, which mandates that the attachment of property continues during the investigation for a period not exceeding 90 days, or until the proceedings related to the offence are pending. The tribunal clarified that the requirement was for the investigation to be completed within 90 days of the confirmation of the PAO, and not specifically against the person whose property was attached. The tribunal referred to previous judgments and the legislative intent to emphasize that the attachment could continue irrespective of whether the person was named as an accused within the 90-day period.

4. Impact of Supplementary Prosecution Complaints:

The appellant argued that the attachment order should lapse because he was named as an accused only in the supplementary complaint filed on 17.12.2018. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the filing of the supplementary complaint did not affect the validity of the PAO, as the initial complaint was filed within the required timeframe. The tribunal highlighted that the objective of the PMLA is to immobilize proceeds of crime, regardless of whether they are in the hands of the accused or another person, until confiscation.

Conclusion:

The tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the validity of the PAO and the compliance with the statutory requirements under PMLA. The tribunal reinforced the interpretation that the attachment and prosecution processes under PMLA are designed to address the broader objective of preventing money laundering, without being constrained by the specific timeline for naming individuals in prosecution complaints.

---