Attached real estate bought via alleged money-laundering-"proceeds of crime" under PMLA-attachment upheld; appeal dismissed.

Whether the attached properties constituted "proceeds of crime" liable to attachment under the PMLA was the dominant issue. The HC held that the record supported a reasonable inference of laundering, as the accused gave colourable explanations for source of funds and consideration, admitted a false narrative of loan agreements to camouflage transactions, and the formation of an HUF and use of the appellant as power-of-attorney holder showed a direct nexus to acquisition of properties. Statements recorded under s.164 CrPC and other materials justified treating the assets as tainted. As the adjudicating authority and appellate tribunal had rendered concurrent, well-reasoned factual findings, no legal error warranting interference was shown; the appeal was dismissed and the attachment upheld.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the confirmed attachment of the specified immovable property as "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA was sustainable on the material considered by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.

(ii) Whether the appellant's claim that he was required to explain only his alleged 50% share in the consideration, and that his disclosed income/returns sufficiently established a lawful source, warranted setting aside the concurrent findings confirming attachment.

(iii) Whether the impugned appellate order suffered from any error of law justifying interference under Section 42 of the PMLA in the face of concurrent factual findings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i) & (ii): Sustainability of attachment as "proceeds of crime" and adequacy of appellant's explanation of source (including 50% share contention)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that the attachment and its confirmation were undertaken under the PMLA mechanism (including attachment, adjudication, and appellate scrutiny), and examined whether the impugned orders, on the record, correctly treated the property as "proceeds of crime" and part of a laundering arrangement.

Interpretation and reasoning: On appraisal of the record and the impugned orders, the Court found that the attached property was supported by material indicating it was derived from tainted funds and that there was a deliberate attempt to launder such money. The Court accepted the inference drawn by the authorities that the accused persons, including the appellant, gave "colorable statements" concerning the source of funds and the payment of consideration, and that an attempt was made to provide a false appearance of legitimacy through loan-related pleas described as "false and fabricated." The Court treated as materially supportive: the manner of formation and operation of the HUF arrangement (including the asserted dormant role/ignorance of its karta), the nexus between the principal accused and the appellant (including appointment as power-of-attorney holder for property purchases), and statements of accused persons recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as sufficient to draw an inference that the property was linked to proceeds of crime. In light of this evidentiary picture, the Court did not accept that the appellant's "50% share" argument and documents relied upon by him displaced the conclusion of taint; it held that such contentions had already been examined in detail by the authorities and did not undermine the attachment.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the determination that the attached property constituted proceeds of crime and that the appellant's explanations regarding source of funds (including limitation to a 50% share and reliance on returns/records) did not warrant reversal of the attachment as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (iii): Interference under Section 42 PMLA-existence of error of law despite concurrent findings

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The appeal was considered under Section 42 of the PMLA, requiring the Court to examine whether the impugned appellate order disclosed an error of law warranting interference.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal had considered the appellant's materials and contentions in "minute details" and recorded concurrent findings of fact supporting attachment. The Court found "no valid reason" to interfere because the appellant's arguments had already been dealt with by "well-reasoned" orders, and the record supported the inference of laundering and tainted origin. The Court expressly concluded that it found no error of law in the impugned order calling for interference.

Conclusions: The Court declined to interfere under Section 42 PMLA, upheld the concurrent findings confirming attachment, and dismissed the appeal.

---