PMLA provisional attachment can stand against non-accused property holders when records show proceeds of crime were layered through them.

Provisional attachment under the PMLA may be sustained even where the property holder is not named as an accused, if the material shows that the attached property or its equivalent value represents proceeds of crime received, parked or layered through that person. The Tribunal examined advances from the main accused company, the absence of actual mineral supply, statements recorded under Section 50(2) of the PMLA, and bank records and related documents. On that basis, it found that the funds were transferred as part of a scheme to park and layer proceeds of crime, and that the appellants failed to show a bona fide business transaction or return of the money.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment confirmed against the appellants, though they were not named as accused, was valid on the basis that the properties represented proceeds of crime received and layered through the appellants.

Analysis: The appellants' challenge was examined against the material showing receipt of substantial advances from the main accused company, the absence of actual supply of minerals, the statement recorded under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the surrounding documents and bank transactions. The relevant principle applied was that for provisional attachment, it is not necessary that the person whose property is attached must himself be named as an accused, if the property or equivalent value is shown to have been received out of or parked with proceeds of crime. On the facts, the Tribunal found that the money was transferred to the appellants as part of a scheme to park and layer the proceeds of crime, and the appellants did not establish a bona fide business transaction or return of the funds.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation were held valid, and the appellants' challenge failed.

---