Provisional attachment of tainted property under PMLA upheld where investigative links justify treating deposits as proceeds.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the note explains that provisional attachment may extend to property held by persons who are not accused where investigative material links those assets to proceeds of crime; deposits and transfers tied by investigation to the embezzled corpus can be treated as proceeds for attachment purposes; a reasonable belief based on cash deposits, seizures and accounting entries suffices to issue a show-cause notice; and declared sources or housing loans that do not satisfactorily explain deposits and acquisitions will not defeat attachment. The practical effect is confirmation of provisional attachment where investigative linkage is established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property can be attached even if the person in whose name it stands is not accused of the predicate offence; (ii) Whether deposits made by Shri Muzaffar Ali Bohra can be presumed to be proceeds of crime despite the appellant claiming them as own funds; (iii) Whether there was no reason to believe on the part of the Adjudicating Authority for issuance of the Show Cause Notice to the appellant; (iv) Whether the appellant has satisfactorily explained the sources of funds for acquiring the properties including housing loans.

Issue (i): Whether property can be attached even if the person in whose name it stands is not accused of the predicate offence.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, holding that attachment power extends to any person in possession of proceeds of crime irrespective of whether that person is accused in the predicate offence. The Tribunal also examined investigative material indicating cash deposits and transactions linking the appellant's family to proceeds of the embezzlement.

Conclusion: Issue decided against the appellant; property can be attached even if the person is not an accused.

Issue (ii): Whether deposits made by Shri Muzaffar Ali Bohra can be presumed to be proceeds of crime despite the appellant claiming them as own funds.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and investigative findings that identified significant cash deposits, seized cash and jewellery, and transfers from the embezzled corpus to the appellant and relatives. The Tribunal found these facts, together with unexplained transactions and expenditures, sufficient to treat the deposits as proceeds of crime for the purpose of attachment.

Conclusion: Issue decided against the appellant; deposits were correctly treated as proceeds of crime for attachment purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether there was no reason to believe on the part of the Adjudicating Authority for issuance of the Show Cause Notice to the appellant.

Analysis: The Tribunal evaluated the investigative material, including cash deposits, seizure of burnt notes, investments and charge sheeting entries, and concluded that there existed a reasonable basis and apprehension regarding the appellant's involvement or connection with the proceeds of crime, thereby justifying issuance of the Show Cause Notice.

Conclusion: Issue decided against the appellant; there was sufficient reason to believe to issue the Show Cause Notice.

Issue (iv): Whether the appellant has duly explained the sources of funds for acquiring the properties including housing loans.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the appellant's explanation regarding sale proceeds of a plot and instalment payments, but found the Enforcement Directorate's accounting of salary, deposits, PF, arrears, seized assets and unexplained expenditures more persuasive. The Tribunal concluded the declared sources and loans did not satisfactorily account for the deposits, investments and acquisitions when measured against the investigative findings.

Conclusion: Issue decided against the appellant; explanations were insufficient to discharge the burden of showing acquisitions were not from proceeds of crime.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional attachment order, concluding that the investigative record furnished sufficient basis under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to link the impugned properties to proceeds of crime and to proceed with attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property is linked to proceeds of crime, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits provisional attachment of that property in the hands of any person irrespective of whether that person is an accused, and the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) includes the value of such property thereby permitting attachment equivalent to the value of proceeds when tainted property cannot be traced.

---