PMLA attachment can rest on prima facie proceeds-of-crime material without re-investigating the predicate offence or awaiting trial.

In PMLA attachment proceedings, the enforcement authority need not conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offence if the FIR and chargesheet disclose prima facie material of a scheduled offence and possible proceeds of crime. Attachment is not invalid merely because the underlying CBI trial is pending, since the fate of the attached property is to be worked out before the Special Judge after the trial and after hearing claims or objections. A bare denial by the claimant of having tendered the cash does not, at the threshold, defeat attachment or establish immediate entitlement to release. The appeal therefore failed and the attachment was maintained, subject to rights being adjudicated in the appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment had to be set aside because the enforcement authority had not conducted an independent investigation into the predicate offence; (ii) Whether the cash of Rs. 30 lakhs could not be attached as case property in the CBI trial; (iii) Whether the appellant could challenge the attachment of Rs. 30 lakhs on the basis of his denial of having tendered the money.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment had to be set aside because the enforcement authority had not conducted an independent investigation into the predicate offence.

Analysis: The predicate offence is to be investigated by the police or CBI, while the enforcement authority is concerned with whether there is prima facie material of a scheduled offence, whether proceeds of crime exist, and whether such proceeds are laundered or likely to be laundered. The record disclosed prima facie material in the FIR and chargesheet, and the remaining aspects were within the domain of the money-laundering investigation. Mere reliance on the predicate-offence material did not make the attachment unlawful.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the cash of Rs. 30 lakhs could not be attached as case property in the CBI trial.

Analysis: The attachment was held not to interfere with the criminal trial, because the fate of the attached amount would be determined by the Special Judge under the PMLA after conclusion of the trial and after inviting claims or objections, if any. The pendency of the predicate-offence trial did not by itself bar attachment under the PMLA.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant could challenge the attachment of Rs. 30 lakhs on the basis of his denial of having tendered the money.

Analysis: The question of the appellant's entitlement and locus standi depended on the pleadings and defence to be examined in the prosecution complaint proceedings. A bare denial of tendering the money did not, at this stage, dislodge the attachment or establish a right to immediate release of the cash.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the attachment was maintained without prejudice to the parties' rights being worked out in the appropriate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the PMLA, the enforcement authority need not re-investigate the predicate offence, and an attachment based on prima facie material relating to proceeds of crime is not displaced merely because the underlying criminal trial is pending or the claimant disputes ownership at the threshold.

---