Provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act upheld where documentary records and unexplained bank transfers establish proceeds of crime.

Whether confirmation under Section 26 PMLA of provisional attachment should be set aside was considered; appellate analysis relied on institutional records, UGC confirmations, seized registers and bank transaction trails showing transfers to accused and relatives, and on the failure of attached persons to satisfactorily disclose sources of acquisition. Rejoinder bank statements were not admitted as fresh evidence on appeal, and the provisional attachment values did not exceed those reflected. On that factual and documentary basis the impugned assets were treated as proceeds of crime and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld with appeals dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 of provisional attachment of properties alleged to be proceeds of crime should be set aside.

Analysis: Evidence recorded in the investigation included seizure of marksheets/certificates issuing registers from the institution and documentary information from the University Grants Commission indicating issuance and backdating of large numbers of degrees, manipulation of admissions and faculty lists, and bank transactions reflecting receipt and transfer of funds. Investigative findings quantified alleged proceeds of crime and showed transfers from institutional accounts to accounts of the accused and their relatives. Notices under the adjudicatory provisions called for disclosure of sources of acquisition of assets, and the persons on whom attachment was effected failed to satisfactorily disclose sources. Attempts to rely on bank statements filed in rejoinder were not admitted as fresh evidence because no application for additional evidence at the appellate stage was made and no permission was granted; in any event, the provisional attachment related to properties of value less than or equal to the amounts reflected even in those statements. The combination of seized records, external confirmations and unexplained receipt/transfers supported continued classification of the impugned assets as proceeds of crime for purposes of provisional attachment confirmation.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the provisional attachment under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is upheld and the appeals are dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---