Provisional attachment under PMLA sustained where property derived from commissions in an illicit scheme; attachments confirmed.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was upheld because investigative records, ECIR and admissions showed appellants acted as agents/directors promoting and collecting deposits for an illicit scheme and that consideration for immovable properties derived from commissions tied to that scheme; spouses failed to prove independent legitimate sources. The Tribunal applied the principle that recipients of proceeds may be liable to attachment even if not separately accused and treated earnings from involvement in the illicit scheme as not legitimate, resulting in confirmation of the provisional attachment and dismissal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of immovable properties belonging to the appellants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is sustainable on the grounds that the properties were acquired out of proceeds of crime and whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly confirmed the provisional attachment.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the investigative record, ECIR and statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 and found that three appellants acted as agents/directors involved in promotion and collection of deposits for illicit schemes of the accused company, and that two other appellants (their wives) failed to demonstrate independent legitimate sources for the acquisition of properties. Admissions in statements indicated that consideration for properties derived from commissions connected to the illegal schemes. The Tribunal applied the statutory framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding attachment of proceeds of crime and adoptive findings that a recipient of proceeds may be subject to attachment even if not separately named as an accused, and that earnings derived from involvement in the illicit scheme cannot be treated as legitimate source.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the appellants' properties was validated and the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld; the appeals are dismissed and no interference is warranted.

---