PMLA attachment can extend to non-accused property, with Covid period excluded from the confirmation timeline.

The Tribunal accepted exclusion of the Covid-19 period in computing the 180-day limit for confirmation of a provisional attachment under the PMLA, so the confirmation order did not lapse. It also held that property may be attached in the hands of a non-accused person where the property represents proceeds of crime, and that a prosecution complaint need not be pending against every person whose property is attached. On the facts, the record showed a money trail from diverted bank funds to the attached entities, the relevant purchase fell within the check period, and equivalent-value attachment was permissible where proceeds of crime were unavailable, so the confirmed attachment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 stood excluded while computing the 180-day period for confirmation of the provisional attachment order under the PMLA; (ii) whether property could be attached in the hands of a person not arraigned as an accused and without a prosecution complaint against that person; and (iii) whether the attachment could be sustained in respect of properties purchased during the check period, including a property said to have been acquired before the alleged offence.

Issue (i): whether the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 stood excluded while computing the 180-day period for confirmation of the provisional attachment order under the PMLA.

Analysis: The 180-day limit under section 5 is a mandatory procedural safeguard, but the Tribunal accepted the application of the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation orders to proceedings under the PMLA. Relying on the later clarification that periods prescribed for completion or termination of proceedings may be excluded, the Tribunal held that the interruption caused by the pandemic could not be counted against the time available for confirmation of the provisional attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation failed and the confirmation order was held not to have lapsed.

Issue (ii): whether property could be attached in the hands of a person not arraigned as an accused and without a prosecution complaint against that person.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the scheme of sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA is directed to property involved in money laundering and not merely to property standing in the name of an accused. It accepted that the sweep of provisional attachment extends to any person in possession of proceeds of crime, and that a prosecution complaint is filed against the scheduled-offence accused, not necessarily against every person whose property is attached. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that absence of a pending prosecution against the appellant-company barred attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment of property in the hands of a non-accused was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the attachment could be sustained in respect of properties purchased during the check period, including a property said to have been acquired before the alleged offence.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the relevant check period was 2007 to 2014 and that the record disclosed a money trail from diverted bank funds to the entities holding the attached properties. It further held that the property purchase in 2012 fell within the check period and that, even otherwise, property of equivalent value may be attached where proceeds of crime are unavailable or have vanished. The Tribunal therefore rejected the claim that the properties were beyond the reach of attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge to attachment on the ground of prior acquisition and lack of nexus was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no ground to interfere with the confirmed attachment order and sustained the impugned order in full.

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion of the Covid-19 period applied to computation of the statutory 180-day window under the PMLA, and property involved in money laundering may be attached even when it stands in the name of a non-accused person if the proceeds of crime have reached that person.

---