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 immovable properties acquired before the commencement of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and before the alleged scheduled offence could be attached; (ii) Whether the attached properties lacked nexus with the alleged proceeds of crime; (iii) Whether the provisional attachment was invalid for want of compliance with the second proviso to Section 5(1); (iv) Whether the requirements of Section 5(1)(a) and (b) were not satisfied; (v) Whether the appellant proved a lawful source of income for acquiring the properties; (vi) Whether the settlement deeds in favour of the appellant and her sister required the attachment to be set aside; (vii) Whether the attachment was unsustainable for want of an independent investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.
Issue (i): Whether immovable properties acquired before the commencement of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and before the alleged scheduled offence could be attached.
Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime in Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was read to include not only tainted property but also property attached as equivalent value where the actual tainted property is unavailable. The attachment of pre-enactment properties was therefore treated as permissible when they represent equivalent value after diversion or siphoning of proceeds of crime.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the attached properties lacked nexus with the alleged proceeds of crime.
Analysis: Once the attachment was sustained as equivalent value property in the absence of traceable direct proceeds of crime, a separate direct nexus between the specific attached property and the original proceeds of crime was held not to be necessary. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that the proceeds had been diverted and layered, and the attached assets represented their equivalent value.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the provisional attachment was invalid for want of compliance with the second proviso to Section 5(1).
Analysis: The record was held to contain sufficient material and statements indicating illegal acquisition, attempted transfer of the properties through settlement deeds, and a likelihood that the properties could be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with so as to frustrate proceedings. On that basis, the emergency attachment under the second proviso to Section 5(1) was treated as justified.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (iv): Whether the requirements of Section 5(1)(a) and (b) were not satisfied.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the appellant was in possession of property linked to proceeds of crime and that the material on record showed a real likelihood of concealment or diversion, especially in view of the prior transfer of the properties by settlement deeds. The conditions for provisional attachment were therefore found to be fulfilled.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (v): Whether the appellant proved a lawful source of income for acquiring the properties.
Analysis: The appellant was found not to have produced convincing documentary evidence such as bank statements or other records establishing regular lawful income sufficient to acquire the attached assets. The explanation based on later settlement deeds was treated as insufficient to displace the material showing that the properties were acquired from illicitly generated funds.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (vi): Whether the settlement deeds in favour of the appellant and her sister required the attachment to be set aside.
Analysis: The settlement deeds were viewed as post-fraud transactions intended to give an appearance of legality to property already traced to unlawful acquisition. They did not break the connection between the assets and the laundering process, and were not accepted as a ground to undo the attachment.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Issue (vii): Whether the attachment was unsustainable for want of an independent investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.
Analysis: It was held that the Enforcement Directorate is not required to re-investigate the predicate offence and may rely on the investigation by the police or CBI for that purpose. Its role is confined to examining whether proceeds of crime were generated, laundered, layered, or are likely to be dissipated, and whether the claimants of attached assets are genuine.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The provisional attachment orders were upheld and the appeals failed on all substantial grounds, while preserving the parties' rights in the criminal trials and restraining coercive action in the manner indicated by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property may be provisionally attached as equivalent value property where direct proceeds of crime are unavailable, and such attachment can be sustained on recorded reasons to believe that the property is likely to be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation proceedings.
TaxTMI 
