Provisional attachment under the PMLA can rest on existing records; prior police seizure does not bar attachment or create double attachment.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be based on material already available from the FIR, charge-sheet, bank records, statements and account scrutiny; the Enforcement Directorate need not re-investigate the predicate offence before forming the statutory belief. Prior police seizure does not prevent attachment under the money-laundering law, because seizure and attachment serve different purposes and are not double attachment. The article further states that seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not equivalent to provisional attachment under the PMLA, and that a later attachment linked to a separate FIR was maintainable where overlap was not shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offence before forming the reason to believe for provisional attachment; (ii) Whether property already seized by the police could also be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether such action amounted to double attachment; (iii) Whether seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is analogous to attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (iv) Whether the later attachment based on the second FIR and the corresponding provisional attachment order was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offence before forming the reason to believe for provisional attachment;

Analysis: The power to provisionally attach property was held to rest on material already available from the FIR, charge-sheet, bank records, statements recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the scrutiny of accounts. The Directorate was not required to re-investigate the predicate offence, since investigation of that offence belonged to the police, while the Directorate was entitled to examine whether proceeds of crime existed, whether they were likely to be laundered, and whether attachment was necessary to preserve them. The recorded material was treated as sufficient to form the statutory belief.

Conclusion: The contention that an independent investigation was mandatory was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether property already seized by the police could also be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether such action amounted to double attachment;

Analysis: Seizure by the police and attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were treated as distinct legal concepts serving different statutory purposes. Search and seizure operate within the criminal process, whereas attachment is a preventive measure to preserve proceeds of crime pending adjudication and confiscation. The fact that the property had earlier been seized did not bar provisional attachment under the money-laundering law, and the action was not characterised as double attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge based on prior seizure and alleged double attachment failed.

Issue (iii): Whether seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is analogous to attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;

Analysis: The seizure procedure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not treated as equivalent to attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The former concerns retention of seized material during the criminal process, while the latter authorises provisional attachment of proceeds of crime to prevent their dissipation and to secure eventual confiscation. The two regimes were found to operate in different fields and with different consequences.

Conclusion: The alleged equivalence between seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was negatived.

Issue (iv): Whether the later attachment based on the second FIR and the corresponding provisional attachment order was maintainable;

Analysis: The later provisional attachment was found to relate to a different order and there was no material to show that the properties covered by the two attachment orders overlapped. Since no appeal was shown against the later confirmation order and the amounts were not demonstrated to be duplicative, the challenge to maintainability was rejected.

Conclusion: The later attachment was held to be maintainable and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all substantive grounds and the attachment confirmation was sustained, with no interference in the resulting criminal trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: For provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Enforcement Directorate need not re-investigate the predicate offence; a reasoned belief may be formed on the basis of material gathered from the FIR, charge-sheet and allied records, and prior police seizure does not by itself bar attachment under the statute.

---