Provisional Attachment under PMLA upheld where admissions, witness statements and banking records establish proceeds and beneficial ownership.

Whether provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act related to property equivalent to identified proceeds was valid: the tribunal treated admissions, corroborative witness statements and contemporaneous banking and transaction records (including loan disbursal, demand draft payments and repeated cash deposits used to repay loan EMIs) as establishing that the appellant received proceeds and arranged repayments, demonstrating beneficial ownership and camouflage of proceeds; on that evidential basis the provisional attachment's link to proceeds of crime was sustained and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of property equivalent to the proceeds received by the appellant and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was legally valid.

Analysis: The matter was decided under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with material including statements recorded under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and contemporaneous banking and transaction records. The evidence accepted by the Adjudicating Authority comprised admissions and corroborative witness statements indicating that the appellant facilitated accommodated letter of credit transactions, charged commission and received sums identified as proceeds of those transactions. Documentary material showed loan disbursal, demand draft payments, and repeated cash deposits used to repay the loan EMIs without credible explanation of source; testimony indicated that the property was held in another's name but the funds and repayments were arranged by the appellant, supporting a finding of beneficial ownership and camouflage of proceeds.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was properly connected to proceeds of crime and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority was legally justified; the appeal is dismissed and the confirmation of provisional attachment is upheld in favour of the respondent.

---