Proceeds of crime attachment under second limb allows preoffence assets to be attached as equivalent value; appeal dismissed

Attachment under the second limb of the statutory definition of proceeds of crime permits seizure of property acquired before the predicate offence where traceable proceeds are not found; the authority may attach property of equivalent value when proceeds have been siphoned off or cannot be traced. The tribunal relied on precedent endorsing valuesubstitution where direct proceeds are unavailable and applied the principle to uphold a provisional attachment order. Consequently, the challenge to the attachment failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an immovable property acquired by the appellant prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be attached and confirmed under the second limb of the definition of "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (i.e., attachment of property of equivalent value when proceeds are not traceable).

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) is parsed into distinct limbs: (i) property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from a scheduled offence; (ii) the value of any such property, ordinarily understood as property of equivalent value where the proceeds are not traceable; and (iii) property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. The second limb permits attachment of untainted property of equivalent value when tainted property has been siphoned off or cannot be located, subject to assessment (even if tentative) of the value of illicit gains and protection of bona fide third-party interests. Where the record demonstrates that proceeds are not available or have been routed/vanished and the attachment is made under the second limb as an equivalent-value measure, interference is not warranted absent failure to meet the statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The attachment of the immovable property acquired prior to the scheduled offence was appropriately effected under the second limb of Section 2(1)(u) as property of equivalent value; no interference with the confirmed attachment order is warranted (decision adverse to the appellant).

---