TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether immovable properties acquired before the alleged predicate offence could be attached and confirmed as property of equivalent value under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether settlement or likely quashing of some scheduled offence FIRs entitled the appellant to relief against confirmation of attachment.
Issue (i): Whether immovable properties acquired before the alleged predicate offence could be attached and confirmed as property of equivalent value under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The expression "proceeds of crime" is wide enough to include not only property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence but also the value of such property. Where the tainted property is not available or has been siphoned off, the statute permits attachment of property of equivalent value. The pre-acquisition of assets, by itself, does not immunise them from attachment when the material shows diversion, layering, and disappearance of the proceeds of crime.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether settlement or likely quashing of some scheduled offence FIRs entitled the appellant to relief against confirmation of attachment.
Analysis: The appellant was facing multiple criminal cases of similar nature forming part of the same enforcement material, and the alleged proceeds of crime were not confined to only two FIRs. Even assuming settlement or quashing of some FIRs, that would not erase the broader allegations or the other connected cases. The offences relied upon also included non-compoundable offences, and the attachment could not be undone merely on the basis of partial settlement.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld and the appeal failed on all substantive grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable, and partial settlement of some scheduled offence cases does not defeat attachment when the wider money-laundering allegations and other connected criminal cases survive.
TaxTMI 
