Proceeds of Crime tracing sustained provisional attachment where claimant failed to discharge the burden to show legitimate acquisition.

Confirmation of provisional attachment addressed whether the properties represented proceeds of crime or their value, and held attachment sustainable where tracing linked funds to the scheme. The applicable burden required the person served to disclose legitimate sources; on the civil preponderance standard the available evidence-statements under the statute, account credits, admissions and loan repayments traced to scheme proceeds-was found sufficient and the statutory onus was not discharged, resulting in upholding confirmation of attachment and dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is legally sustainable in the hands of the appellant.

Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the attached properties represented proceeds of crime or the value thereof such that attachment under the PMLA could be sustained. The Tribunal reviewed statutory provisions including the scope of attachment and confiscation under Section 5(1) and the procedure under Section 8(1) and the related burden on a person served with notice to disclose sources of acquisition. The Tribunal applied settled law that attachment may be effected even where the person in whose name the property is held is not an accused in the scheduled offence, provided the property is shown to be derived from proceeds of crime or represents its value. The Tribunal evaluated the evidence on record, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and admissions regarding receipt and use of funds, account credits into the appellant's bank account, and repayments of loans from amounts traced to the scheme. On the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable to confirmation of provisional attachment, the Tribunal found that the material before the Adjudicating Authority supported the finding that the properties were linked to proceeds of crime and that the appellant had not discharged the statutory onus to demonstrate legitimate sources of acquisition.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the provisional attachment of the properties is upheld and the appeal is dismissed (decision in favour of the respondent).

---