Equivalent-value attachment under money-laundering law can stand even for pre-offence property when proceeds of crime are unavailable.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, property may be attached as equivalent value even if it was acquired before the alleged scheduled offence, where the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable because they have been layered, exhausted, or otherwise rendered inaccessible. Disputed title did not defeat attachment, because the tribunal would not determine ownership in the money-laundering appeal and attachment does not itself alter title or possession. The provisional attachment was also upheld because the record, including investigation material, bank trail, statements, and the stated modus operandi, provided sufficient reasons to believe that the property could be concealed or transferred so as to frustrate confiscation proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property acquired prior to the alleged scheduled offence could still be attached as equivalent value under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether the attachment could be interfered with on the ground that title to the property was disputed and no direct nexus with proceeds of crime was shown; (iii) whether the provisional attachment was vitiated for want of sufficient material and reasons to believe.

Issue (i): Whether property acquired prior to the alleged scheduled offence could still be attached as equivalent value under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The property was not treated as direct proceeds of crime but as property of equivalent value. The statutory definition of proceeds of crime encompasses both property derived or obtained from criminal activity and its equivalent value when the actual tainted asset is not available. On the facts found, the proceeds had been layered, exhausted, or otherwise rendered unavailable, and the Tribunal relied on its earlier reasoning that equivalent-value attachment is not excluded merely because the property was acquired before the scheduled offence period.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the attachment on the ground of prior acquisition was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment could be interfered with on the ground that title to the property was disputed and no direct nexus with proceeds of crime was shown.

Analysis: The ownership dispute was already sub judice before the civil court, and the Tribunal held that it was not required to decide title in the appeal under the money-laundering statute. It further held that attachment does not by itself alter title or possession. Since the attachment was sustained as equivalent value property, insistence on proving a direct nexus with the original proceeds of crime was not decisive at this stage.

Conclusion: The objection based on disputed title and absence of direct nexus was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the provisional attachment was vitiated for want of sufficient material and reasons to believe.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the respondent's material, including the investigation record, statements, bank trail, and the explanation of the modus operandi, and found that the provisional attachment order sufficiently disclosed the basis for the apprehension that the property could be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation proceedings. The Tribunal therefore found no infirmity in the exercise of power under the attachment provisions.

Conclusion: The attachment was held to be legally sustainable and the appellants' challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment order was sustained in full and no interference was called for in appellate review.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the money-laundering statute, property of equivalent value may be attached even if acquired before the scheduled offence period, provided the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable and the statutory safeguards for provisional attachment are satisfied.

---