Provisional attachment upheld where lawful source of property funds was not proved and notice-based ex parte adjudication was valid.

Provisional attachment of property under money-laundering proceedings was upheld because the appellant failed to produce credible documentary proof of the lawful source of the purchase funds. The claimed friendly loan and savings or stridhan were not supported by bank records or a loan agreement, and statements recorded in the investigation denied the alleged loan and indicated routing of funds through intermediaries. The ex parte objection also failed because notice had been duly served, no one appeared for the appellant, and the adjudication was completed within the statutory framework without procedural illegality. The confirmation of attachment was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's property and its confirmation were justified when the appellant failed to establish a credible lawful source for the purchase consideration; (ii) whether the confirmation order was vitiated as ex parte for want of a proper hearing.

Issue (i): whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's property and its confirmation were justified when the appellant failed to establish a credible lawful source for the purchase consideration.

Analysis: The appellant was required to explain the source of funds used to acquire the property. The record showed that the property was purchased for a substantial amount, while the claimed friendly loan and savings/stridhan were not supported by reliable documentary material such as bank records or a loan agreement. The persons said to have advanced the loan denied the stated transaction in their statements recorded under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and those statements indicated routing of funds through intermediaries to channelise proceeds of crime. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of showing a legitimate source for the property.

Conclusion: The attachment and its confirmation were upheld and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the confirmation order was vitiated as ex parte for want of a proper hearing.

Analysis: Notice had been served on the appellant, but no one appeared on her behalf before the Adjudicating Authority. The proceedings had to be completed within the statutory timeline under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Tribunal found no defect in proceeding ex parte where service was complete and the appellant had an opportunity to participate after the provisional attachment and the death of her husband. The absence of representation was therefore not treated as a procedural illegality.

Conclusion: The ex parte contention failed and was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order, leaving the confirmation of attachment intact and ending the appeal adversely to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant fails to produce credible documentary proof of the lawful source of funds for acquisition of property and the recorded statements under the money-laundering investigation show routing of proceeds through conduits, the provisional attachment may be confirmed; service of notice and non-appearance justify completion of the adjudication ex parte within the statutory framework.

---