2026 (3) TMI 442 - AT - Money Laundering

Attachment under PMLA: tribunal refused interim return of funds to avoid dissipation and preserve appeal outcome.

Interim relief seeking return of funds during appeals was refused because permitting release would risk dissipation and defeat the attachment object under ... Provisional attachment - quantification of proceeds - Interim relief granting final relief impermissible - risk of dissipation as ground to refuse interim release of attached proceeds - consolidation and expedited hearing of related appeals. Interim relief granting final relief impermissible - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the appellant's prayer sought relief of a final character at the interlocutory stage and could not be granted by an interim order. Allowing immediate return of the re-quantified amount would risk dissipation of proceeds and could frustrate the Directorate's cross-appeal against the re-quantification, rendering that appeal infructuous. The Tribunal distinguished the Madras High Court in Nithesh Chaudhari [2024 (1) TMI 1541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] decision relied upon by the appellant on the facts that in that case specific properties were identifiable and their attachments were not confirmed, whereas here the reduced quantification does not correspond to identifiable, discrete properties in bank accounts. Balancing the equities, the Tribunal found a prima facie apprehension of irreparable loss to the Directorate if the funds were released and therefore declined the interim relief while preserving the appellant's right to raise the same issues in the main appeal. [Paras 13, 14, 16, 18, 19] Interim application for return/release of the disputed sum is dismissed; appellant may press the reliefs in the main appeal. Consolidation and expedited hearing of related appeals - HELD THAT:- To balance competing equities and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal ordered that all pending matters relating to the appellant and arising out of the Adjudicating Authority's order be heard and disposed of together on an expedited basis. The parties were directed to complete pleadings promptly and the appellant was given a timeline to file its reply in the related appeal; an initial listing date was fixed for case management and conveyance of final hearing date. [Paras 16, 17] All related appeals shall be listed and heard together expeditiously; parties to complete pleadings and cooperate for early final hearing. Final Conclusion: The interim application seeking return/release of the disputed sum is dismissed for being premature and likely to cause irreparable prejudice to the Directorate; the Tribunal ordered consolidation and expedited disposal of all appeals arising from the Adjudicating Authority's order, preserving the appellant's right to pursue reliefs in the main appeal. Issues: Whether the interim application seeking immediate return of INR 1,54,15,300/- and related interim reliefs during the pendency of appeals should be granted.Analysis: The re-quantification order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 11.03.2025 is under challenge by the Directorate in a cross-appeal pending before this Tribunal; allowing the interim application would risk dissipation of funds and frustrate the object of attachment under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which ensures availability of proceeds of crime for confiscation. The impugned sum is not traceable as specific, identifiable attached properties; the factual matrix differs from cases where specific immovable properties were not confirmed and could be released. Granting the relief sought would amount to granting final relief at an interlocutory stage and could render the Directorate's pending appeal infructuous. On balance of convenience and to prevent irreparable loss to the respondent, the interim relief is inappropriate pending final adjudication of the appeals. The Tribunal directed expeditious consolidation and hearing of connected matters to protect the interests of both parties.Conclusion: Interim application dismissed; relief refused and the application stands dismissed in favour of the Respondent.