Equivalent-value attachment in money-laundering can survive when proceeds are untraceable and the property remains linked to laundering activity.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable, and provisional attachment is sustained if investigation material creates the requisite reason to believe that confiscation may be frustrated. Money-laundering was treated as an independent and continuing offence, so later inclusion or notification of the predicate offence did not defeat proceedings where laundering activity continued. Attachment was also held maintainable against a person not named as an accused, because the decisive question is whether the property represents proceeds of crime or their value and is connected with the laundering process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attached property, though not traced as the direct or indirect proceeds of crime, could be attached as the value of such proceeds under the definition of proceeds of crime. (ii) Whether the statutory conditions for provisional attachment were satisfied. (iii) Whether the predicate offences, as scheduled offences, could be applied retrospectively for the purpose of money-laundering proceedings. (iv) Whether the appellant's property could be retained in attachment even though the appellant was not named as an accused in the criminal case or the prosecution complaint.

Issue (i): Whether the attached property, though not traced as the direct or indirect proceeds of crime, could be attached as the value of such proceeds under the definition of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as wide enough to cover not only property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also the value of such property. Where the actual tainted property is not available or traceable, attachment of equivalent-value property is permissible. The reasoning relied on the statutory definition and binding authority recognising that a person cannot defeat the Act by dissipating the actual proceeds and retaining other assets.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory conditions for provisional attachment were satisfied.

Analysis: The material collected in investigation was held sufficient to form the requisite reason to believe that proceeds of crime were involved and that non-attachment would frustrate confiscation proceedings. The order also treated the case as one where the second proviso to the attachment provision was attracted on the facts, because the property was liable to be dealt with in a manner defeating the Act's object.

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

Issue (iii): Whether the predicate offences, as scheduled offences, could be applied retrospectively for the purpose of money-laundering proceedings.

Analysis: The relevant consideration was held to be the date on which the proceeds are projected as untainted and dealt with in a manner connected with money-laundering, not merely the date of the underlying scheduled offence. Money-laundering was treated as an independent and continuing offence, so later inclusion or notification of the predicate offence did not assist the appellant where the laundering activity continued thereafter.

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

Issue (iv): Whether the appellant's property could be retained in attachment even though the appellant was not named as an accused in the criminal case or the prosecution complaint.

Analysis: The attachment power was held not to be confined to persons named as accused in the scheduled offence or in the complaint under the Act. The decisive question was whether the property represented proceeds of crime or their value and was held by a person connected with the laundering process. The absence of the appellant's name as an accused did not prevent attachment of the property.

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

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was upheld and the appeal failed on all substantive grounds, leaving the impugned confirmation of attachment intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable, and such attachment can be sustained against a person not named as an accused if the property is connected with the laundering process and the statutory prerequisites for provisional attachment are met.

---