Statutory burden on property proceeds of crime not rebutted where income sources and asset trail remained unproven.

Under the statutory burden framework, the Tribunal upheld confirmation of attachment of properties alleged to be proceeds of crime because the appellants failed to prove a genuine source of funds. It found that returns, registrations and bank entries did not establish actual business activity or independent income, and that the claimed family and gift sources were unsupported by material evidence. Frequent credit entries, the absence of proof of real business in family entities, and the appellants' failure to explain the transactions reinforced the conclusion that the assets were layered and projected as untainted. The challenge to the attachment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment of properties alleged to represent proceeds of crime was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the appellants had disclosed sources of income and that the attached properties were acquired from independent or family funds.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to establish the source of funds for the purchase of the attached properties, including the flat said to have been purchased by the elder brother and later gifted, and the flat purchased in the names of the appellant and his wife. It held that, in the absence of disclosure and supporting material showing actual business activity or genuine source of income, the returns, registrations and bank entries did not discharge the burden cast on the appellants under the Act. The frequent credit entries, the absence of proof of actual business in the family entities, and the failure of the appellants to appear and explain the transactions supported the finding that the assets were layered and projected as untainted. The Tribunal also applied the statutory burden under the Act to hold that the appellants had not rebutted the allegation that the properties were acquired from proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---