Proceeds of Crime treatment upheld: provisional attachment sustained under PMLA where transactions and documentation failed to rebut criminal linkage.

Confirmation of a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was sustained where transaction records, bank transfers, lack of credible source of funds, absence of genuine revenue or corroborative buyer-seller documentation, inconsistent share certificates and links between the company and the prohibited organisation together supported treatment of impugned transfers as proceeds of crime; documentary discrepancies failed to rebut the attachment. Operative effect: the confirmation of attachment is held sustainable under the Act, with the appeals dismissed and the attachment order maintained under the statutory definitions and Section 26 enforcement framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 08.04.2024 confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.11.2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the factual matrix including FIRs under IPC, UAPA and IT Act leading to an ECIR, seizure of documents from PFI premises identifying M/s Multiflor Builders Pvt. Ltd. (MBPL) as an entity alleged to be used to park and distribute funds; bank transaction history showing substantial credits from NRE accounts and transfers from MBPL to multiple individuals; failure of the appellants to produce timely and consistent share certificates evidencing genuine shareholding; absence of credible source of funds for alleged capital infusion by the appellants; lack of revenue operations in MBPL's records and absence of corroborative documentary evidence for the claimed buyer/seller transactions relied upon by appellants; and banking transactions between MBPL and entities controlled by PFI. The Tribunal found these materials sufficient to establish a link between MBPL and PFI and to treat the impugned transfers as proceeds of crime within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that documents relied upon by appellants (sale deeds, share certificates) suffered from material discrepancies and were not adequately countersigned or otherwise substantiated to rebut the respondents' case.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order is upheld and the appeals are dismissed; the order confirming attachment is sustainable under Section 26 and Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---