Money laundering provisional attachment and proceeds of crime finding resulted in remand for specific order on omitted property.

Money laundering investigation alleged fraudulent procurement of letters of undertaking as proceeds of crime and sustained provisional attachment based on material obtained during investigation, with a finding of reasonable belief supporting continued attachment and no record of direction to release attached properties. An identified omissionfailure to specify one attached property in the adjudicating orderwas held material, prompting remand to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a specific order concerning that omitted property; the appeal disposed by remand accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) requires correction/remand insofar as it misidentifies ownership and omits a specific order in respect of the property at serial no. 24 (Flat No.91, Gokul Building) held by the appellant, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a specific decision on that property.

Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal examined the impugned AA order confirming PAO No.03/2018 and found material ambiguities concerning the identification and treatment of two adjacent properties: serial no. 23 (flat in the name of M/s Rohan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) and serial no. 24 (flat transferred to the appellant on 01.11.2013). The Tribunal analysed the record and the AA's order paragraphs showing that the confirmation and conclusions referred expressly to serial no. 23 as standing in the name of D-12 in parts of the AA order, while serial no. 24 the property owned by the appellant was omitted from those operative findings despite being listed in the PAO. The Tribunal considered submissions on ownership, timing of acquisition relative to the predicate offences, the absence of direct money trail claimed by the appellant, and the ED's contentions regarding shareholdings and potential connections to proceeds. The Tribunal concluded that, although there was substantial material relied upon by ED concerning the broader fraud, the specific omission and inconsistent references in the AA's order created a jurisdictional/clerical ambiguity requiring the AA to pass a specific, reasoned order as to serial no. 24 rather than leaving the issue unresolved on appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to pass a specific, reasoned order regarding the property at serial no. 24 (Flat No.91, Gokul Building) and to resolve the identified ambiguity in the confirmation of the PAO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

---