Money-laundering attachment upheld where proceeds of crime were traced by value and laundering was treated as a continuing offence.

Money-laundering proceedings were upheld on the basis that proceeds of crime may be proceeded against by value where the tainted property is unavailable, and that laundering is a continuing offence assessed by the date of laundering activity rather than the date of the underlying predicate conduct. The Tribunal rejected remand, want of reasons, laches, and challenges based on pre-Act purchases, later inclusion of offences in the schedule, and the claim that illegal mining alone was outside the schedule. It also held that the appellants had not disproved the material showing acquisition and layering of illicit funds, and declined release of the jointly owned property on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the matter required remand to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order; (ii) whether the attachment and confirmation orders were unsustainable for want of reasons and because the properties were claimed to have been purchased from income disclosed in returns; (iii) whether properties purchased before the commencement of the Act were outside its scope; (iv) whether properties purchased before the quarrying permit were outside the scope of money-laundering proceedings; (v) whether the order had to be set aside in relation to properties attached on the basis that some predicate offences were later included in the schedule; (vi) whether illegal mining was not a scheduled offence; (vii) whether the appellants had not indulged in or projected proceeds of crime as untainted property; (viii) whether the order was liable to be set aside for laches; (ix) whether the jointly owned property of one appellant was liable to be released to the extent of his share; (x) whether the appeal by one appellant claiming to be a dormant partner was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the matter required remand to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order.

Analysis: The order recorded the basis for attachment, reproduced the material relied upon, and discussed the replies and rejoinders before confirmation. The extent of the order did not by itself show non-application of mind. The Tribunal also held that the material disclosed a sufficient basis for confirmation and that remand was not warranted.

Conclusion: Remand was declined and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment and confirmation orders were unsustainable for want of reasons and because the properties were claimed to have been purchased from income disclosed in returns.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the investigation materials, valuation reports, statements, and the pattern of acquisitions showed laundering of proceeds of crime. The explanation based on income tax returns and declared receipts was found insufficient to displace the statutory material supporting attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether properties purchased before the commencement of the Act were outside its scope.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the wide definition of proceeds of crime and the principle that properties acquired earlier may still be proceeded against as equivalent value where the tainted property is unavailable. It treated the relevant enforcement action as directed to value and not merely to the date of purchase.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether properties purchased before the quarrying permit were outside the scope of money-laundering proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the material date is the date of the laundering activity and projection of tainted property as untainted, not merely the date of the underlying criminal conduct or permit. It treated money laundering as a continuing offence.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (v): Whether the order had to be set aside in relation to properties attached on the basis that some predicate offences were later included in the schedule.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the case was supported by multiple scheduled offences and that the PMLA proceedings were not defeated merely because one offence was said to have been added later. The relevant enforcement action was upheld on the larger set of scheduled offences.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (vi): Whether illegal mining was not a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the proceedings were not dependent on illegal mining alone, since the record disclosed several predicate offences falling within the schedule. The absence of one offence from the schedule did not invalidate the entire action.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (vii): Whether the appellants had not indulged in or projected proceeds of crime as untainted property.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the properties were acquired out of the illegal gains generated from the mining operations and that, in any event, properties of equivalent value could be attached where the proceeds of crime were not directly traceable. The appellants did not rebut the material showing use and layering of illicit funds.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (viii): Whether the order was liable to be set aside for laches.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that Section 5 does not prescribe a limitation period for passing a provisional attachment order and that delay by itself was not a ground to invalidate the attachment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ix): Whether the jointly owned property of one appellant was liable to be released to the extent of his share.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that it could not conclusively determine, on the record before it, whether the appellant had purchased the property from his own funds. It found that this question required trial-level examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and no release was ordered in the appeal.

Issue (x): Whether the appeal by one appellant claiming to be a dormant partner was maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that no property attached in the present complaint was traced to that appellant and that the property linked to him was the subject of a different proceeding. On that footing, it found that he had no locus in the present appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with liberty to defend the criminal case in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The attachment and confirmation were upheld for the appeals under challenge, and the connected challenge by the remaining appellant was not entertained in this proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Money-laundering proceedings may proceed on the basis of the value of proceeds of crime where the tainted property is unavailable, and the offence is a continuing one governed by the date of laundering activity rather than the date of the underlying predicate offence.

---