Equivalent-value attachment under SAFEMA stands when lower criminal quantification is not proved and collateral claims do not bar seizure.

Attachment of property of equivalent value under SAFEMA was upheld where the appellant failed to produce the criminal court order relied on to show a lower quantified loss, and the charge-sheet continued to reflect a higher proceeds figure. The tribunal also held that amounts allegedly withheld in arbitration or with a municipal authority did not, by themselves, defeat equivalence-based attachment, because such claims were not shown to be realised proceeds available in satisfaction of the alleged crime. On the material before it, the attachment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment could be confined to the lesser amount said to have been quantified by the criminal court. (ii) Whether the existence of amounts allegedly withheld in arbitration or with the municipal authority barred attachment of property of equivalent value.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment could be confined to the lesser amount said to have been quantified by the criminal court.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the assertion that the loss had been judicially quantified at a lower figure and, therefore, attachment beyond that amount was impermissible. The record did not contain the relied-upon order of the criminal court, while the charge-sheet quantified the proceeds at a higher amount. In the absence of the relevant order, the plea based on a reduced quantification could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the attachment could not be limited on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of amounts allegedly withheld in arbitration or with the municipal authority barred attachment of property of equivalent value.

Analysis: The amounts referred to by the appellant were not shown to be realised proceeds available in satisfaction of the alleged crime, and the arbitral proceedings were still subject to judicial scrutiny. A sum claimed or withheld in another proceeding does not by itself displace attachment of property where the authority proceeds on the basis of alleged proceeds of crime of equivalent value. The tribunal accepted the seriousness of the allegations and the equivalence-based attachment as justified on the material before it.

Conclusion: The existence of withheld or claimed amounts did not defeat the attachment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds and the impugned attachment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for attachment of alleged proceeds of crime, attachment of property of equivalent value is sustainable where the higher quantified amount in the charge-sheet is not displaced by reliable contrary material, and a claimed or withheld amount in collateral proceedings does not by itself bar such attachment.

---