Proceeds of crime attachment sustained where borrower-assessment and recovery assistance, plus no rebuttal documents, supported quantification.

A party's own statement admitting assistance in borrower risk assessment, loan disbursement connectivity, and recovery services was treated as material showing participation in the offending financial arrangement, so attachment of its properties was sustained. The tribunal also found no infirmity in the quantification of the proceeds of crime because the assessment was based on the available material, including the appellant's statement, and the appellant produced no supporting documents despite time to do so. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the attached amount was upheld as only part of the assessed receipts linked to unlawful activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was shown to have assisted the main accused in loan disbursement, borrower risk assessment, and recovery so as to justify attachment of its properties; (ii) Whether the quantification of the proceeds of crime attached from the appellant suffered from any infirmity.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was shown to have assisted the main accused in loan disbursement, borrower risk assessment, and recovery so as to justify attachment of its properties.

Analysis: The appellant's former director's statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 recorded that the company had assisted Krazybee in risk assessment of potential borrowers and had also provided recovery assistance through a service arrangement. The statement further indicated that the company's app facilitated borrower-lender connectivity, that findings were submitted for lender decision-making, and that recovery services were rendered for the associate entity. On this material, the appellant was found to have been involved in the process of disbursement and recovery, and not a stranger to the transaction chain.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant, and its involvement was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the quantification of the proceeds of crime attached from the appellant suffered from any infirmity.

Analysis: The attachment amount was assessed on the basis of the available material, including the appellant's own statement and the absence of any supporting documents despite time having been sought for producing them. The appellant had received service fees, and the attached amount was stated to be only a part of the assessed receipts linked to the unlawful activity. In the absence of contrary material from the appellant, no error in the assessment or quantification of the proceeds of crime was found.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant, and the assessment of proceeds of crime was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was upheld because the appellant was found to have assisted in the loan and recovery framework connected with the offending activity, and the quantified proceeds of crime were not shown to be erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi: A party's own statement admitting assistance in borrower assessment and recovery, coupled with failure to produce rebuttal documents, is sufficient to sustain attachment as proceeds of crime where the material shows participation in the offending financial arrangement.

---