Provisional Attachment under PMLA upheld where fund tracing and layering linked the property to proceeds of crime.

Whether confirmation of a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in respect of immovable property should be set aside was decided by assessing investigative nexus tying the property to proceeds of crime through bank account transaction analysis, admissions, timing of acquisition against the statutory check period, and use of the corporate vehicle for layering. The Tribunal treated the first FIR, ECIR and chargesheet as relevant corroborative material, rejected that quashing of a later FIR or a leasehold title alone negated the material, and held the provisional attachment confirmation justified, dismissing the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment order made under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in respect of immovable property allegedly acquired out of proceeds of crime is liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the investigative findings linking the impugned property to routing of funds through numerous bank accounts identified in the money laundering investigation, including admissions and account transaction analysis showing initial payments and diversion of investor funds into accounts associated with the accused and the company. The Tribunal considered the timing of acquisition and payments in relation to the statutory check period, the use of the company as a vehicle for layering proceeds, and the relevance of the first registered FIR and ensuing ECIR and chargesheet. The Tribunal rejected the contention that quashing of a later FIR (alleged) or a leasehold title alone negated the investigative material establishing that the property was acquired from proceeds of crime. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant raised no other substantive legal or factual issues.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the confirmation of the provisional attachment under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is justified and declined to interfere; the appeal is dismissed.

---