PMLA attachment based on finally rejected allegations cannot stand where a later FIR rests on different facts.

A provisional attachment under the PMLA could not be maintained where its foundation rested on allegations that had already been finally negatived in earlier criminal proceedings, and the later FIR did not supply the same factual basis. The Tribunal noted that the allegations about auction, reserve price valuation, and tender irregularities had been examined in prior proceedings, with the cognizance order set aside and that view affirmed in writ proceedings. Because those issues had attained finality, they could not be reopened to justify attachment. It also found that the later FIR concerned different and broader cooperative society issues, so the impugned order lacked a sustainable factual basis. The attachment and its confirmation were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be sustained when the very allegations forming its foundation had earlier been negatived in criminal proceedings and the later FIR did not relate to those allegations.

Analysis: The impugned attachment rested on allegations concerning the auction and sale of the property, undervaluation of reserve price, and alleged irregularities in the tender process. Those allegations had already been examined in proceedings arising from the earlier complaint, where the cognizance order was set aside by the revisional court and that view was affirmed in writ proceedings. The Tribunal held that, once those allegations had attained finality against the basis urged by the respondents, the same controversy could not be reopened for the purpose of attachment. The later FIR of 2019 arose out of different and general issues concerning cooperative societies and was not the foundation of the attachment order in substance. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned order proceeded on facts unconnected with the later FIR and therefore lacked a sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in success for the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional attachment under the PMLA cannot be sustained on allegations that have already been finally rejected in prior proceedings, especially where the subsequent criminal process does not furnish the same factual foundation.

---