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 confirmed provisional attachment could be sustained where the attached vehicles were claimed to have been purchased from explained sources, and whether such properties could still be treated as value of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether the attachment against the other appellant could be interfered with on the grounds that he was not named in the predicate offence and that the evidence, including statements under section 50, was insufficient or inadmissible.
Issue (i): whether the confirmed provisional attachment could be sustained where the attached vehicles were claimed to have been purchased from explained sources, and whether such properties could still be treated as value of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Analysis: The appellant explained the source of purchase of the vehicles, but the Court held that the respondents had relied on the larger laundering network and on the statutory concept of proceeds of crime, which includes not only property derived from criminal activity but also its value. The Court applied the settled principle that even if a specific asset is shown to have been acquired from explained sources, it may still be attached as value of proceeds of crime if the direct proceeds have been dissipated or are unavailable. The attachment was treated as a protective and balancing measure pending trial, and the pending prosecution complaints were considered relevant to continued attachment.
Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment of the vehicles failed and the issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the attachment against the other appellant could be interfered with on the grounds that he was not named in the predicate offence and that the evidence, including statements under section 50, was insufficient or inadmissible
Analysis: The Court held that non-mention in the predicate offence did not preclude proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It found that the material on record included multiple corroborative sources, such as statements of co-accused and witnesses, forensic extraction from mobile phones, call and location data, and the appellant's own inability to explain the declared income. The Court further held that the cited authority on section 50 statements did not lay down any blanket rule of inadmissibility in custody and that admissibility had to be considered on the facts of each case. On the overall material, the Court found sufficient basis for continuation of the attachment.
Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment was rejected and the issue was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The confirmed provisional attachments were upheld in both appeals, and no interference was called for with the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property may be provisionally attached not only as direct proceeds of crime but also as their value, and such attachment may be sustained on a broader evidentiary foundation even where the property is explained or the accused is not named in the predicate offence.
TaxTMI 
