Proceeds of crime and equivalent-value attachment upheld where laundering nexus and statutory safeguards under PMLA were established.

Proceeds of crime under PMLA were treated as broad enough to cover traceable tainted assets and, where those were no longer available, property of equivalent value. The Tribunal held that immovable property acquired before the alleged scheduled offence was not immune from attachment if the laundering nexus was established, and later-acquired property could also be attached where the appellant had received distributed criminal proceeds. It further found the second proviso to Section 5(1) satisfied on the investigation material, including belief that the appellant possessed proceeds of crime and that non-attachment could frustrate proceedings. The attachment was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether immovable properties acquired before the alleged commission of the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime or equivalent-value property. (ii) Whether a property acquired after the period of the alleged scheduled offence could be attached on the basis of the appellant's receipt of proceeds of crime. (iii) Whether the provisional attachment satisfied the statutory requirements under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether immovable properties acquired before the alleged commission of the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime or equivalent-value property.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as wide enough to cover not only the tainted property derived from criminal activity but also property of equivalent value where the tainted proceeds were no longer traceable. The reasoning accepted that, once the proceeds generated from the scheduled offence had been dissipated or siphoned off, attachment could extend to equivalent-value property even if acquired earlier, so long as the statutory nexus with the laundering activity was established. The appellant's plea that the properties were purchased before the offence period was therefore not decisive.

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

Issue (ii): Whether a property acquired after the period of the alleged scheduled offence could be attached on the basis of the appellant's receipt of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The material showed that the appellant had received a share of the proceeds of crime, and that the total proceeds were distributed among the conspirators. The later-acquired property was therefore not insulated from attachment merely because its purchase post-dated the scheduled offence period, since the attachment was supported by the appellant's involvement in laundering and receipt of criminal proceeds. The Tribunal accepted the attachment as a consequence of the established laundering trail and the quantified benefit received by the appellant.

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

Issue (iii): Whether the provisional attachment satisfied the statutory requirements under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the statutory preconditions for provisional attachment were met on the material collected during investigation. It held that there was sufficient basis to believe that the appellant was in possession of proceeds of crime and that non-attachment could frustrate proceedings. The existence of the scheduled offence complaint and the apprehension of alienation of the properties were treated as satisfying the statutory safeguards invoked by the appellant.

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

Final Conclusion: The attachment was upheld and the appeal failed in entirety, with the Tribunal leaving the criminal trial unaffected and directing restraint against coercive steps except in exceptional circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceeds of crime have been traced to laundering activity but are no longer available in their original form, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached if the statutory conditions under Section 5 are satisfied, even if the property was acquired before or after the scheduled offence period.

---