PMLA attachment can survive even if the person is not an accused in the predicate offence, where factual disputes remain unresolved.

A person need not be arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence to face proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and a challenge to attachment will not succeed merely because a separate disproportionate-assets proceeding has been closed. Where the scheduled offence remains pending, the Tribunal held that questions about the source of income, bank accounts, alleged manipulation of records and nexus with proceeds of crime are factual disputes requiring evidence and trial, not appellate interference at the attachment stage. On that basis, the confirmed provisional attachment was maintained and the challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be interfered with on the grounds that the appellants were not accused in the scheduled offence, that proceedings relating to disproportionate assets had been closed, and that the material regarding proceeds of crime and nexus with the appellants required rejection of the attachment.

Analysis: The attachment was challenged on the basis that the appellants were not arraigned as accused in the predicate offence and that the alleged proceeds of crime were not traceable to any subsisting scheduled offence against them. The Tribunal noted the governing principle that a person need not necessarily be an accused in the predicate offence to face action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that benefit of quashing, discharge or closure in the predicate case is relevant only where the underlying scheduled offence itself has been extinguished in a manner affecting the money-laundering proceedings. The Tribunal found that the present proceeding related to a predicate offence which was still pending, while the separate proceeding concerning disproportionate assets had been dropped and did not control the present case. It further held that the factual disputes regarding the appellants' income sources, account details and alleged manipulation of financial records involved matters requiring evidence and trial, and were not fit for interference at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confirmation of attachment was rejected and the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the attachment order remained undisturbed, leaving the appellants to seek appropriate relief if the pending Supreme Court proceedings result in a favourable outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: For action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a person need not be an accused in the predicate offence, and where the scheduled offence remains pending, factual disputes and alleged lack of direct involvement do not by themselves warrant interference with a confirmed attachment.

---