Provisional attachment under PMLA upheld where prima facie material shows proceeds of crime; fiscal payment does not confer immunity.

Whether PMLA proceedings may target a person not named in the FIR/ECIR: the Act is independent of scheduled-offence prosecution and absence from FIR/ECIR does not bar invocation of PMLA where material gives 'reason to believe'; outcome - attachment sustainable. Whether tax payment or voluntary declaration under a fiscal scheme absolves liability: payment under a separate fiscal scheme does not confer immunity or negate prima facie involvement in laundering; outcome - does not prevent attachment. The record showed prima facie routing of demonetized currency through intermediaries into the appellant's accounts consistent with placement, layering and integration, supporting confirmation of provisional attachment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's bank accounts under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is legally tenable, including (i) whether proceedings under the PMLA can be initiated against a person not named in the FIR/ECIR, and (ii) whether voluntary declaration and payment under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna absolve the appellant from attachment under the PMLA.

Analysis: The appeal challenges confirmation of a provisional attachment arising from alleged conversion of demonetized currency into bank entries. Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are independent of criminal proceedings in a scheduled offence and may be invoked against any person involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime; absence of the person's name in the FIR or ECIR does not by itself bar action under the PMLA. Section 5 and Section 5(1) permit provisional attachment on material giving "reason to believe" that property is proceeds of crime; Section 2(1)(u) and Section 2(1)(v) define "proceeds of crime" to include the property derived or the value thereof, permitting attachment of equivalent value where original proceeds are not traceable. The record contains prima facie material of routing demonetized currency through intermediaries and RTGS credits into the appellant's firm and company accounts, indicating placement, layering and integration steps consistent with money laundering processes. Payment of taxes or deposits under a separate fiscal scheme does not confer statutory immunity under the PMLA or negate prima facie involvement in money laundering activity.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is upheld; the appellate challenge is dismissed and the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order is maintained in favour of the respondent.

---