Money-laundering attachment can stand without FIR naming if possession of proceeds of crime is shown and source of funds remains unexplained.

Provisional attachment under money-laundering law can be sustained against a person not named in the FIR or charge-sheet if material shows possession or receipt of proceeds of crime. The tribunal rejected the objection based on non-impleadment, finding that formal accusation in the predicate offence is unnecessary where the property is tainted. It also found that the appellants failed to prove a lawful source for remittances and property purchases, as the claimed earnings were unsupported by bank records or reliable accounts and the surrounding evidence indicated acquisition from tainted funds. The attachment and its confirmation were therefore sustained and the appeals dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether provisional attachment could be sustained even though the appellants were not named as accused in the FIR or charge-sheet. (ii) Whether the appellants established a lawful source for the remittances and property purchases, so as to displace the finding that the attached properties represented proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether provisional attachment could be sustained even though the appellants were not named as accused in the FIR or charge-sheet.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that attachment under the money-laundering law is not confined to persons arraigned in the scheduled offence. The decisive question is whether the person is in possession of proceeds of crime or has received property connected with such proceeds. A person may be proceeded against if the material indicates possession or receipt of tainted property, even without being an accused in the predicate case.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-impleadment as an accused was rejected and the attachment was held sustainable against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants established a lawful source for the remittances and property purchases, so as to displace the finding that the attached properties represented proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The explanations regarding the alleged earnings in Dubai and the transfer of large sums to India were not supported by documentary proof such as bank statements or reliable accounts. The contemporaneous SMS trail, the unexplained cash component, the timing of purchases, and the failure to prove the source of funds led to the inference that the assets were acquired from tainted funds and projected as untainted property. The tribunal also treated properties acquired around the relevant period as liable to attachment where their value was linked to the proceeds of crime or its equivalent value.

Conclusion: The source of funds was not proved and the finding that the properties were proceeds of crime was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order and its confirmation were sustained, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For provisional attachment under the money-laundering law, it is sufficient if material shows possession or receipt of proceeds of crime; formal accusation in the scheduled offence is not necessary, and unexplained assets traced to tainted funds or their equivalent value are liable to attachment.

---