Provisional attachment under money laundering law sustained where prima facie links to tainted funds and shell diversion were shown.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was upheld because the investigation materials, including FIRs, the ECIR, witness statements and the appellant's own statement, were sufficient to show prima facie involvement in the scheduled offence and laundering process. The Tribunal found allegations of collection of funds from depositors on false promises, diversion to shell or unrelated entities, and acquisition of immovable properties from tainted funds. The appellant's claim that the properties were not proceeds of crime, and that purchase came from a personal source or settlement, was rejected for lack of reliable supporting material. No interference with the attachment was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the properties were not proceeds of crime and the appellant was not involved in the alleged laundering activity.

Analysis: The materials collected during investigation, including the FIRs, ECIR, witness statements and the appellant's own statement, were found sufficient to indicate prima facie involvement in the scheduled offence and the laundering process. The record showed allegations of large-scale collection of funds from depositors on false promises, diversion of money to shell or unrelated entities, and acquisition of immovable properties from the tainted funds. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's explanation regarding separation from the company, alleged receipt of money in settlement, and personal source of purchase was not substantiated by reliable supporting material.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---