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 property may be provisionally attached as "value thereof" of proceeds of crime even when the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is invoked. (ii) Whether the immovable property standing in the name of Smt. Shyama Devi could be attached as value of proceeds of crime despite its purchase prior to the alleged period of crime. (iii) Whether the attached properties standing in the name of Shri Anil Yadav were supported by a sufficient money trail and were liable to attachment.
Issue (i): Whether property may be provisionally attached as "value thereof" of proceeds of crime even when the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is invoked.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 5(1) was read as a whole. The main provision and both provisos were held to operate in the context of proceeds of crime, and the expression "value thereof" in Section 2(1)(u) was treated as part of that definition. The reasoned view was that the second proviso does not exclude attachment of property as value of proceeds of crime, because such an interpretation would defeat the object of the enactment and render the provision ineffective.
Conclusion: Yes. Attachment as "value thereof" is permissible even when the second proviso is invoked.
Issue (ii): Whether the immovable property standing in the name of Smt. Shyama Devi could be attached as value of proceeds of crime despite its purchase prior to the alleged period of crime.
Analysis: The prior date of purchase was not accepted as decisive. The relationship of the holder with the principal accused, the pattern of immovable acquisitions, the income reflected in the returns, and the unexplained increase in funds were treated as relevant indicators. The distinction from the cited precedent was accepted on facts, and the property was viewed as capable of being used to layer or hold proceeds of crime in the hands of the husband.
Conclusion: Yes. The attachment of the property in the name of Smt. Shyama Devi was sustained.
Issue (iii): Whether the attached properties standing in the name of Shri Anil Yadav were supported by a sufficient money trail and were liable to attachment.
Analysis: The Tribunal relied on statements recorded during investigation, bank-account material, and the absence of any credible business explanation for funds received from a contractor under investigation. The explanation that the properties were acquired from loans and family earnings was found uncorroborated, and the nexus with tainted funds was accepted for the purpose of provisional attachment.
Conclusion: Yes. The attachment of the properties in the name of Shri Anil Yadav was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment order was sustained in full and the appellants obtained no relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the definition of proceeds of crime includes their value, and property may be attached as value thereof on a holistic reading of Section 5(1) even when the second proviso is invoked, if the material indicates a nexus with laundering activity.
TaxTMI 
