TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a quantified value above Rs. 30 lakhs negatived the existence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether properties acquired before the alleged offence period could still be treated as proceeds of crime or equivalent value and attached. (iii) Whether attachment could be sustained even though the appellant was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence. (iv) Whether the recording of reasons to believe for provisional attachment and for issuing show-cause notice was legally sufficient.
Issue (i): Whether the absence of a quantified value above Rs. 30 lakhs negatived the existence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The relevant predicate offences were offences under Part A of the Schedule, so the case did not depend on the monetary threshold applicable to the alternative limb relied upon by the appellant. The Tribunal also noted that the material disclosed turnover and receipt of amounts well beyond the suggested threshold in any event.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether properties acquired before the alleged offence period could still be treated as proceeds of crime or equivalent value and attached.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the definition of proceeds of crime is wide enough to include not only property derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property. On the evidence, the properties were found to have been kept afloat and serviced through funds traceable to narcotics-related receipts, and therefore the prior purchase dates did not protect them from attachment. The Tribunal treated the properties as infused with criminal proceeds and also as liable on the equivalent-value theory where the original tainted property was not available.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (iii): Whether attachment could be sustained even though the appellant was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled principle that attachment under the money-laundering law is not confined to persons formally accused in the scheduled offence, so long as the property is linked to proceeds of crime or the process of money laundering. Since the impugned properties were found to be proceeds of crime or their equivalent value, the absence of a predicate-offence charge against the appellant did not defeat the attachment.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (iv): Whether the recording of reasons to believe for provisional attachment and for issuing show-cause notice was legally sufficient.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Enforcement Directorate had conducted investigation, recorded statements, collected documents, and formed its satisfaction on the basis of the material gathered before issuing the provisional attachment order. It further held that the Adjudicating Authority had independently applied its mind to the complaint, documents, and statements, and therefore the statutory requirement of reasons to believe stood satisfied.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The attachment and its confirmation were upheld, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Property traceable to criminal activity, or its equivalent value where the tainted asset is unavailable, may be attached under the money-laundering law even if the property was acquired earlier or the owner is not an accused in the predicate offence, provided the statutory satisfaction of reasons to believe is recorded on relevant material.
TaxTMI 
