Equivalent value attachment upheld where tainted property is untraceable and money-laundering inquiry need not re-investigate predicate offences.

Where actual tainted property cannot be traced, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value if the statutory conditions are satisfied; the tribunal upheld attachment on that basis. It also held that provisional attachment and its confirmation were supported by material showing fraudulent borrowings, diversion of loan proceeds, outstanding liabilities, and a risk that the properties could be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The Enforcement Directorate was not required to conduct an independent re-investigation of the predicate offences, because its role is limited to examining the existence and trail of proceeds of crime, layering, dissipation, and the genuineness of claimants. The appeals failed, subject to protection for properties already mortgaged and auctioned by banks as directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether properties can be attached as equivalent value in the absence of direct proceeds of crime; (ii) Whether there was reason to believe for passing and confirming the provisional attachment; (iii) Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offences.

Issue (i): Whether properties can be attached as equivalent value in the absence of direct proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime includes not only property derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property. On that basis, properties not directly traceable to the tainted funds, including properties acquired earlier, may be proceeded against where the actual proceeds of crime cannot be traced and the statutory conditions for equivalent value attachment are satisfied.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether there was reason to believe for passing and confirming the provisional attachment.

Analysis: The material gathered in the investigation showed large-scale fraudulent borrowings, diversion of loan proceeds, outstanding liabilities treated as proceeds of crime, and the likelihood of concealment or dealing with the properties in a manner frustrating confiscation proceedings. The authority found that the statutory requirements for provisional attachment and its confirmation were met.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the Enforcement Directorate was required to conduct an independent investigation into the predicate offences.

Analysis: The role of the Enforcement Directorate in a money-laundering inquiry is confined to examining the existence and trail of proceeds of crime, layering, dissipation, and the genuineness of claimants. It is not required to re-investigate or arrive at a fresh conclusion on the predicate offences, which remain for the police or CBI to investigate.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was upheld and the appeals failed, while protection was preserved for properties already mortgaged and auctioned by banks in the manner directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the actual tainted property cannot be traced, attachment may extend to equivalent value properties, and the Enforcement Directorate is not obliged to re-investigate the predicate offence while exercising powers under the money-laundering statute.

---