Attachment under PMLA upheld using circumstantial evidence for proceeds of crime in extortion under Sections 384 and 120B IPC

The HC upheld the attachment order under the PMLA, finding sufficient material to form a reason to believe that the properties were proceeds of crime linked to large-scale extortion under Sections 384 and 120B IPC. The Court held that direct evidence is not necessary; circumstantial evidence and financial analysis suffice to establish a prima facie case. The absence of a predicate offence was rejected based on precedent from the SC. The nexus between the appellants and the alleged proceeds was established, and explanations for property acquisition were inadequate. The attachment was deemed a preventive measure, not a final guilt determination. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the foundational facts for invoking the presumption under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) have been established.Whether the attachment of properties under the PMLA is valid in absence of a predicate scheduled offence.Whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had "reason to believe" that the attached properties constitute proceeds of crime (PoC) as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.Whether the appellants are bona fide purchasers entitled to protection against attachment under the PMLA.Whether the procedure followed in confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) complied with the principles of natural justice.Whether the composition and constitution of the Adjudicating Authority (AA) under Section 6 of the PMLA was valid and not suffering from coram non-judice.Whether statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, including those of co-accused, are admissible and sufficient to establish the case.Whether the concept of "equivalent value" property attachment under the PMLA applies to properties acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence.Whether the sharing of information by the ED with other law enforcement agencies under Section 66(2) of the PMLA is lawful and proper.Whether the appeals raise any substantial question of law warranting interference with the orders of the AA and Appellate Tribunal.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the foundational facts for presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA were established by the material on record, including financial transactions and linkages to the scheduled offence, and the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption.The absence of cognizance of the scheduled offence in the initial FIR or charge-sheet does not vitiate the attachment proceedings, as the scheduled offence was subsequently registered and investigated by competent authorities, and the ED's action under the PMLA was lawful and within jurisdiction.The ED had recorded "reason to believe" supported by material evidence, including seized documents, diary entries, and statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, sufficient to provisionally attach the properties as PoC.The appellants claiming to be bona fide purchasers failed to satisfactorily prove the legitimate source of funds for acquisition, and the properties were held to be involved in money laundering, including those acquired through sham transactions or as benami assets.The procedure adopted by the AA in confirming the PAO complied with the principles of natural justice, including issuance of show cause notices and consideration of replies; rejection of cross-examination requests at this stage was justified to prevent delay.The constitution of the AA as a single member bench, including non-judicial members, was held valid and not vitiated by coram non-judice, consistent with judicial precedents.Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, including those of co-accused, are judicial proceedings and admissible as evidence, though corroboration is necessary; the Court found sufficient corroboration in the case.The concept of attachment of property of "equivalent value" under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA applies to properties acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence if the actual PoC properties are not available, to prevent frustration of proceedings.The sharing of information by the ED with other investigative agencies under Section 66(2) of the PMLA is lawful, and subsequent FIR registration by those agencies is proper and does not affect the validity of PMLA proceedings.No substantial question of law arose warranting interference; the orders of the AA and Appellate Tribunal were upheld as well-reasoned and based on material evidence.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the PMLA, particularly Sections 3 (offence of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8 (adjudication), 24 (burden of proof), and 50 (powers of authorities), along with relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and procedural laws.The Court recognized that money laundering offences involve complex layering and integration of proceeds of crime, often requiring reliance on circumstantial evidence and financial analysis rather than direct proof.The presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA shifts the burden to the accused to prove innocence regarding PoC, and the Court found the appellants failed to discharge this burden adequately.The Court relied on judicial precedents affirming that attachment of properties prior to commission of offence is permissible under the "equivalent value" doctrine to prevent siphoning off of proceeds.The Court upheld the validity of the AA's composition and procedure, rejecting challenges based on natural justice and quorum, citing authoritative case law confirming single-member benches and administrative members' jurisdiction.Regarding statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, the Court emphasized their judicial nature and admissibility, subject to corroboration, and found sufficient corroboration in the present case.The Court held that the ED's sharing of information under Section 66(2) facilitates coordinated investigation and does not breach jurisdictional or procedural norms.The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal conducted a detailed and reasoned analysis of individual appellants' cases, rejecting claims of mechanical or non-application of mind.The Court observed that the PMLA's scheme aims to prevent dissipation of illicit assets during investigation and trial, thus the attachment and confirmation orders serve a preventive and protective purpose rather than final adjudication of guilt.The Court rejected appellants' reliance on absence of scheduled offence in initial FIR or charge-sheet, noting subsequent registration and cognizance by competent authorities and Supreme Court observations affirming the continuing investigation.

---