Interpretation of PMLA Section 8(7) and 8(8): Special Court confirmation set aside; appeal restored for merits.

The definition of "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA covers property equivalent in value to assets obtained from scheduled offences, permitting attachment where direct proceeds are unavailable. Where an appeal under the statutory appellate remedy is pending, the Special Court should defer deciding a Section 8(7) confirmation application because the confirmation must be final; the Special Court's allowance of such an application was set aside and the appeal restored. Confiscation vests absolute ownership in the Central Government on law's operation. The applicant's claim under Section 8(8) failed for lack of demonstrated quantifiable loss and was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 can be decided by the Special Court while an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order under Section 8(3) is pending before the Appellate Tribunal; (ii) Whether an application under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 by a claimant (appellant company) was maintainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a Special Court may adjudicate an application under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 while an appeal under Section 26 against the Adjudicating Authority's Section 8(3) confirmation order remains pending.

Analysis: Section 8(7) is contingent upon a confirmation order under Section 8(3) that has attained finality; the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 has broad powers and time-bound disposal obligations; once an order under Section 8(3) is challenged, the doctrine of merger and the statutory appeal mechanism create a deemed embargo on concluding proceedings under Section 8(7) until finality is achieved. The phrase "material before it" in Section 8(7) is limited to material demonstrating the contingency and entitlement to possession and does not permit the Special Court to supplant or review an order under Section 8(3) that is under challenge, except on new material not earlier considered.

Conclusion: The Special Court cannot decide an application under Section 8(7) while an appeal under Section 26 against the Section 8(3) confirmation order is pending; Section 8(7) is available only after the confirmation order attains finality. This conclusion is in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's application under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 for restoration was maintainable.

Analysis: Section 8(8) requires that a claimant demonstrate legitimate interest, quantifiable loss, good faith, absence of involvement in money-laundering, and having taken reasonable precautions. The second proviso to Section 8(8) permits restoration during trial only subject to compliance with Rule 2(b) and Rule 3A of the 2016 Rules, including framing of charges and publication procedures. The appellant had appealed the Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 26 and failed to demonstrate the statutory prerequisites including quantifiable loss and the conditions of Rule 2(b) and Rule 3A.

Conclusion: The appellant's Section 8(8) application was not maintainable on the facts and statutory criteria. This conclusion is against the appellant on the Section 8(8) claim.

Final Conclusion: The Special Court's order allowing the respondent's application under Section 8(7) is set aside and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the pending appeal under Section 26 on merits; the appellant's Section 8(8) application was correctly dismissed. The overall legal effect is restoration of the appellant's right to have its appeal heard on merits and restraint on Section 8(7) proceedings until the confirmation order attains finality.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 can be decided by the Special Court only after the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order under Section 8(3) attains finality; where an appeal under Section 26 is pending, a deemed embargo operates on Section 8(7) proceedings unless new material not previously considered is placed before the Special Court.

---