Proceeds of Crime attachment upheld where fraud funds were routed through controlled entities and laundering was treated as continuing offence.

Material such as the charge-sheet, investigation record and recorded statements was treated as sufficient to form a valid reason to believe that the property represented proceeds of crime, so the jurisdictional challenge to provisional attachment failed. The Tribunal further held that property purchased through funds routed via intermediary entities controlled by the principal accused remained traceable to the bank-fraud proceeds, and that money laundering is a continuing offence; accordingly, the later inclusion of the predicate offences in the Schedule and the Article 20 objection did not defeat attachment. It also upheld the Section 8 notice, confirmation proceedings and continued attachment as valid protective measures, and rejected the objection based on physical possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the provisional attachment was without jurisdiction for want of a valid reason to believe that the appellant held proceeds of crime; (ii) whether the subject property, purchased in auction, lacked the necessary nexus with the scheduled offence and whether the argument based on the later inclusion of the predicate offences in the Schedule defeated the attachment; (iii) whether the notice and confirmation proceedings under Section 8 and the continued attachment of the property were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the provisional attachment was without jurisdiction for want of a valid reason to believe that the appellant held proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The material before the authority, including the charge-sheet, investigation record and statements under the Act, was treated as sufficient to form the requisite belief. The attachment order recorded the basis for concluding that funds generated from the bank fraud had been routed through newly created group entities and used to acquire the property in the appellant's name. The challenge that the order lacked a real foundation for jurisdiction was rejected.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction for want of reason to believe failed and was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the subject property, purchased in auction, lacked the necessary nexus with the scheduled offence and whether the argument based on the later inclusion of the predicate offences in the Schedule defeated the attachment.

Analysis: The property was found to be traceable, directly or indirectly, to the proceeds generated by the bank fraud, because the funds were routed through intermediary entities controlled by the principal accused and then used for the auction purchase. The Tribunal treated money laundering as a continuing offence and held that the relevant inquiry was the laundering activity and the use or projection of tainted value, not merely the date of the predicate offence or the auction purchase. The plea based on absence of retrospective effect to the Schedule and Article 20 of the Constitution of India was rejected.

Conclusion: The property was held to be linked to proceeds of crime and the retrospectivity challenge failed against the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the notice and confirmation proceedings under Section 8 and the continued attachment of the property were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the notice and confirmation could validly proceed once the material showed the property to be proceeds of crime. It further held that attachment is a protective measure to secure confiscation proceedings and that, on the facts, continued attachment was justified. The objection to taking physical possession was not accepted as a ground to invalidate the attachment itself.

Conclusion: The confirmation and continuation of attachment were upheld and the objection to possession did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to lack merit because the property was treated as connected with laundering activity and the statutory attachment mechanism was held to have been validly invoked and sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material shows that funds derived from a scheduled-offence fraud were routed through controlled entities and used to acquire property, the property can be treated as proceeds of crime for attachment under the Act, and money laundering being a continuing offence, the date of the predicate offence does not by itself defeat attachment.

---