Provisional attachment of proceeds of crime upheld where alleged loan receipt was admitted but no credible repayment proof existed.

Property representing admitted proceeds of crime may be provisionally attached under PMLA even where the recipient is not named in the FIR and claims bona fide receipt as a loan, if no credible loan documents or proof of repayment are shown. The Tribunal found that the appellants admitted receipt of funds from accused persons, but failed to substantiate any lawful loan transaction or repayment basis, so the plea of innocent receipt did not displace the character of the money as proceeds of crime in their hands. Provisional attachment was therefore justified to secure the value pending trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of properties could be interfered with when the appellants admitted receipt of alleged proceeds of crime and claimed that the money was received bona fide as a loan without knowledge of the scheduled offence.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellants were not named in the FIRs, but they admitted receipt of Rs. 9.5 crores from the accused persons. The record showed no loan documents and no satisfactory proof of repayment. The Tribunal held that mere assertion of bona fide receipt without knowledge of the source did not displace the fact that the money constituted proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellants. Since the properties were found to have been acquired out of, or for value representing, such proceeds, provisional attachment was justified to secure the amount till completion of trial.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed, and the attachment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Property representing admitted proceeds of crime may be provisionally attached under the PMLA even if the recipient claims bona fide receipt, where the receipt is admitted and no credible loan or repayment basis is shown.

---