Money-laundering confiscation must track attached or tainted property; post-lift purchases cannot be confiscated.

Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the CrPC applies to Special Court proceedings except where the Act provides , so an order confiscating property is treated as an order disposing of property and the appeal against it was maintainable under the corresponding CrPC appellate remedy. Confiscation is confined to property involved in money-laundering or used in the offence; where provisional attachment had already been lifted and the appellant purchased the properties thereafter, confiscation of those properties was unsustainable. The HC therefore set aside the confiscation order insofar as it related to the appellant's properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal against confiscation ordered by the Special Court was maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the Special Court could confiscate the appellant's properties when the attachment had already been lifted and the appellant had purchased the properties thereafter.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal against confiscation ordered by the Special Court was maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to Special Court proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 save as otherwise provided. An order confiscating property by the Special Court operates as disposal of property. Since the Act does not provide a separate appeal against such confiscation, the statutory remedy lies under the appellate provision corresponding to disposal of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Special Court could confiscate the appellant's properties when the attachment had already been lifted and the appellant had purchased the properties thereafter.

Analysis: Confiscation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is confined to properties involved in money-laundering or used for commission of the offence. The record showed that the provisional attachment had been lifted pursuant to the interim arrangement directed by the Supreme Court and that the appellant purchased the properties after the lifting of attachment. The Special Court also had the option to proceed against the fixed deposit furnished in compliance with the Supreme Court's order, rather than confiscating the appellant's properties. Confiscating property already transferred without subsisting attachment was therefore not justified.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the appellant's properties was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned confiscation order, insofar as it related to the appellant's properties, could not stand and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is limited to property involved in money-laundering, the Special Court cannot confiscate a third party's property acquired after attachment has been lifted, and the proper course is to proceed against the property legitimately traceable to the offence or the substituted security.

---