Money-laundering attachment can reach equivalent-value property, even pre-offence assets, if the statutory presumption is not rebutted.

The Tribunal upheld provisional attachment under money-laundering law, holding that "proceeds of crime" covers the value of illicit gains and, where the tainted property is unavailable, property of equivalent value may be attached even if acquired before the predicate offence. It accepted a workable basis for the alleged proceeds of crime from excess red sand excavation and related revenue loss, and found the appellants failed to show that the excavation was limited to the permitted quantity or that the income reflected in returns was wholly legitimate. Disclosure of assets in tax returns did not make them untainted, and the statutory presumption was not rebutted, so the attachment and its confirmation were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmed provisional attachment was sustainable where the properties were treated as proceeds of crime or as properties of equivalent value, including properties acquired prior to the alleged scheduled offence, and whether the appellants displaced the statutory burden under the money-laundering law.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the respondent had furnished a workable basis for assessing the alleged proceeds of crime by relying on excess excavation of red sand beyond the permissible quantity and the resulting revenue loss. It found that the appellants did not establish that excavation was confined to the permitted limit or that the amounts reflected in the returns represented legitimate income alone. The Tribunal further held that disclosure of property in income-tax returns did not make the assets untainted for the purposes of the money-laundering law if the underlying income itself arose from illegal activity. On the scope of attachment, it accepted that the expression "proceeds of crime" is wide enough to include not only directly derived property but also property of equivalent value, and that such equivalent-value property may be attached even if acquired prior to the commission of the predicate offence when the actual tainted property is unavailable. It also found that the appellants failed to discharge the burden cast by the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation were upheld, and the challenge to the attachment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the money-laundering law, "proceeds of crime" includes the value of illicit gains, and where the actual tainted property is not traceable, property of equivalent value may be attached even if it was acquired before the predicate offence, unless the affected party rebuts the statutory presumption.

---