Proceeds of crime and continuing money-laundering upheld attachment despite retrospectivity challenge under the Act.

Properties were treated as proceeds of crime where the record showed convictions in the scheduled offence, transfer of immovable assets at a value far below the asserted market value, and no satisfactory documentary proof for the claimed source of funds or transferee payment. On that basis, attachment was sustained. The Tribunal also rejected the retrospectivity challenge, holding that money-laundering is distinct from the predicate offence and may constitute a continuing offence where proceeds of crime are possessed, concealed, or used after the relevant enactment. Attachment and confiscation were not treated as retroactive punishment for the original offence, so the proceedings under the Act remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned immovable properties were proceeds of crime and the confirmation of attachment was justified; (ii) Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were barred on the ground of retrospectivity.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned immovable properties were proceeds of crime and the confirmation of attachment was justified.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the appellants had been convicted in the scheduled offence and that the properties stood transferred in the name of one appellant for a value far below the asserted market value. The explanation regarding the source of funds, the delayed completion of the land transactions, and the alleged sale in favour of the transferee was found to lack satisfactory documentary corroboration. The explanation for the transferee's payment also remained unsubstantiated by reliable proof. On the available record, the Tribunal found sufficient basis to accept the authority's conclusion that the properties were involved in laundering and were projected as untainted assets.

Conclusion: The attachment was sustained and the appellants failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were barred on the ground of retrospectivity.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that money-laundering is distinct from the predicate offence and may be treated as a continuing offence where the person continues to possess, conceal, or use proceeds of crime after the relevant enactment and inclusion of the scheduled offence. The challenge based on Article 20 was rejected because attachment and confiscation proceedings are not equivalent to retroactive conviction or enhanced punishment for the predicate offence. The later initiation of attachment proceedings did not invalidate action taken in relation to property derived from a scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The retrospectivity objection was rejected and the proceedings under the Act were held maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was upheld and all connected appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Property derived from or connected with scheduled-offence proceeds may be attached under the money-laundering law even where the predicate offence predates the proceedings, because attachment targets the continuing process of laundering and not retrospective punishment for the original offence.

---