Money laundering involving ketamine and frozen assets upheld on preponderance of probabilities, appeal dismissed for lack of rebuttal

Money laundering allegations concerning ketamine and frozen assets were assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, with the available material treated as sufficient to infer involvement in money laundering and to justify continued retention and freezing of properties under the challenged regime; the decision distinguishes a prior Supreme Court precedent as factually and legally inapplicable and notes the appellant failed to discharge the onus of rebutting involvement, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation ousts the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal against an Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 8 of the PMLA; (ii) Whether, on merits, there was sufficient material to justify continued retention/freezing of the seized properties, digital devices and bank accounts under Section 8(3) of the PMLA.

Issue (i): Whether the filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation ousts the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal against an AA order under Section 8.

Analysis: The appeal record shows a prosecution complaint was filed and confiscation was proposed; however, the question of jurisdiction depends on the statutory scheme and the specific provisions applicable at the relevant time. The prior authority relied upon concerned a different statutory period and factual matrix and does not establish a general rule that filing a prosecution complaint renders an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal infructuous. The Appellate Tribunal retains the power to examine legitimacy of the AA's order and to decide the appeal on merits regardless of subsequent prosecution proceedings.

Conclusion: The filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation does not oust the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction; the Tribunal may entertain and decide the appeal against the AA's order.

Issue (ii): Whether there was sufficient material to justify continued retention/freezing of the seized items and accounts under Section 8(3).

Analysis: The impugned order contains factual findings including transactional links, account analysis, and chat-extract inferences connecting the seized items and frozen funds to the alleged criminal syndicate and routing of funds. On the preponderance of probabilities at the interlocutory stage, the material relied upon supports a finding of involvement of the properties in money laundering. The appellants did not discharge the onus to show absence of involvement or illegality of the retention.

Conclusion: On the merits, there was sufficient material to uphold continued retention/freezing of the seized properties and accounts under Section 8(3); the appeal on merits fails.

Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal retains jurisdiction to entertain appeals under Section 8 of the PMLA notwithstanding the filing of a prosecution complaint, and on the facts presented the AA's order permitting continued retention/freezing is sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal challenges an Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 8, the Appellate Tribunal retains jurisdiction to decide the appeal irrespective of subsequent filing of a prosecution complaint proposing confiscation, and continued retention under Section 8(3) is justified at the interlocutory stage if, on the preponderance of probabilities, there is sufficient material linking the property to money laundering.

---