Provisional attachment under PMLA upheld where tracing of proceeds through corporates to recipients supports confirmation.

Provisional attachment under the PMLA may be confirmed on the basis of collective corroborative material tracing proceeds from scheduled offences through corporate vehicles to identifiable recipients; reliance on statements recorded under other statutes or a diary as corroboration did not vitiate confirmation. Requirement for provision of English translations was held satisfied on the record. Where fund flows from shell/jamakharchi companies into personal accounts and purchases of property are established, the corporate veil need not block attachment of recipients' assets. Provisional attachment under Section 8(3)(a) may continue during investigation or pendency where statutory criteria are met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority could rely on statements and materials (including statements recorded under statutes other than the PMLA and a diary) as part of evidence to confirm a Provisional Attachment Order; (ii) Whether Regulation 3 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 was violated by not providing documents/statements in Hindi or English; (iii) Whether properties of individuals/shareholders could be provisionally attached for proceeds routed through corporate/jamakharchi companies; (iv) Whether provisional attachment under Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA may continue during investigation or pendency of proceedings and its scope vis-a -vis scheduled offences.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority could rely on statements and materials (including statements recorded under statutes other than the PMLA and a diary) as part of evidence to confirm a Provisional Attachment Order.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the record and found multiple statements recorded under Section 50(2) of the PMLA and other material recovered during searches. Although a statement of one witness recorded under the Income-tax Act was present, the Adjudicating Authority did not base the PAO solely on that statement or the diary; those items were corroborative among a body of evidence including statements taken under the PMLA, transaction records and tracing of funds from shell companies to personal accounts.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority permissibly relied on the collective evidence; reliance on statements recorded under another statute as corroborative material did not vitiate confirmation of the PAO. This conclusion is against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether Regulation 3 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 was violated by not providing documents/statements in Hindi or English.

Analysis: The impugned order records that English translations of the statements were provided to the Adjudicating Authority on 07.12.2021 and that the statements were recorded in Bengali by witnesses well versed in that language. The Tribunal found the objection to be factually incorrect and essentially technical, noting the Adjudicating Authority's explicit findings about translation and provision of English gist in the complaint.

Conclusion: There was no contravention of Regulation 3; the argument on this ground fails. This conclusion is against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether properties of individuals or shareholders can be provisionally attached when proceeds have been routed through corporate/jamakharchi companies.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered evidence of fund flows from identified shell/jamakharchi companies into the bank accounts of the appellants and purchases of properties from those funds. It distinguished the facts from authorities invoked by appellants on corporate separation, finding direct correlation between the main accused's criminal activity, layering through companies and acquisition by persons connected to him; thus attachment could target recipients of proceeds even if routed through corporate vehicles.

Conclusion: Provisional attachment of properties of individuals/shareholders was permissible on the facts and evidence; the corporate veil argument did not warrant interference. This conclusion is against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether provisional attachment under Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA may continue during investigation or pendency of proceedings and its relation to scheduled offences.

Analysis: The Tribunal interpreted Section 8(3)(a) in light of statutory text and binding authority of the Apex Court, noting that provisional attachment need not be limited to those formally accused in the scheduled offence and may apply to any person involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime; attachment may continue during investigation (subject to statutory limits) or pendency of proceedings.

Conclusion: Section 8(3)(a) permits continuation of attachment in the circumstances shown; the appellants' contention based on contrary Single Bench reasoning was rejected as inconsistent with higher authority. This conclusion is against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority recorded sufficient corroborative evidence, complied with Regulation 3, correctly treated recipients of laundered funds as proper subjects of provisional attachment and applied Section 8(3)(a) consistently with higher authority; consequently there is no ground to interfere with confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an authorised officer adduces sufficient material tracing proceeds from scheduled offences through corporate or other channels to identifiable recipients, the Adjudicating Authority may confirm a provisional attachment relying on the collective corroborative evidence (including translated statements and material recorded under different statutes) and provisional attachment under Section 8(3)(a) may continue during investigation or pendency of proceedings as permitted by the PMLA.

---