Predicate investigation delay alone does not defeat provisional attachment or its confirmation in money-laundering proceedings.

Alleged delay in completion of the predicate offence investigation did not, by itself, invalidate or impede provisional attachment or its confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The tribunal noted that an FIR had been registered, an ECIR recorded, and a prosecution complaint already filed in the money-laundering proceedings. Because the predicate agency was not a party, the claimed delay in that investigation could not be examined as a basis to interfere with the impugned order. No legal provision or authority was shown to establish that such delay alone defeated the proceedings. The appeals therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in completion of investigation in the predicate offence could invalidate or impede the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the money-laundering proceedings.

Analysis: The appeals challenged the confirmation of provisional attachment essentially only on the ground that the predicate agency had not completed investigation for a long period. The record showed that an FIR had been registered, an ECIR had been recorded, and a prosecution complaint had already been filed in the money-laundering proceedings. In the absence of the predicate agency being a party, the claimed delay in that investigation could not be examined or made the basis for interfering with the impugned order. No legal provision or authority was shown to establish that such alleged delay, by itself, would defeat the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The alleged delay in the predicate investigation did not furnish a valid ground to interfere with the provisional attachment or its confirmation, and the appeals failed.

---