Bona fide property sale proceeds cannot be treated as proceeds of crime without a proven nexus to tainted funds.

Legitimate sale proceeds from a bona fide property transaction cannot be treated as proceeds of crime unless a proved nexus exists with tainted funds. Where the land was lawfully acquired, part of it was sold through admitted transactions, and consideration was received under an executed agreement to sell, attachment should be directed against the property actually linked to the alleged criminal proceeds, not against lawful sale receipts. Seized cash also cannot be sustained under an attachment order without justification or demonstrated nexus to the alleged offence. The operative principle is that provisional or confirmed attachment must remain confined to assets traceable to the alleged criminal proceeds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale consideration received by the appellants for transfer of immovable property could be treated as proceeds of crime and subjected to provisional attachment. (ii) Whether the cash seized from the appellants' residence could be validly confirmed under the impugned attachment order.

Issue (i): Whether the sale consideration received by the appellants for transfer of immovable property could be treated as proceeds of crime and subjected to provisional attachment.

Analysis: The land was originally acquired by the appellants through a lawful auction purchase, which was not disputed. A substantial part of the land had already been sold through admitted and lawful transactions, and the consideration received for those completed transfers could not be characterised as proceeds of crime. For the remaining parcel, an agreement to sell had been executed, possession had been handed over, and full consideration had been received, though the formal sale deed could not be registered because of pending civil litigation. In these facts, the proper course was to proceed against the land itself, not the legitimate sale proceeds already received by the appellants.

Conclusion: The sale consideration received by the appellants could not, on these facts, be treated as proceeds of crime for the purpose of sustaining attachment of that amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the cash seized from the appellants' residence could be validly confirmed under the impugned attachment order.

Analysis: The record did not show any justification for attaching the seized cash, especially when the principal transaction was a genuine property sale and the amount attached had no established nexus with the alleged tainted funds. The order confirming attachment of the cash was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment of the seized cash was not justified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded in establishing that the impugned attachment could not be sustained to the extent of the legitimate sale consideration and the seized cash, and the appeal was allowed with consequential directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Legitimate sale proceeds from a bona fide property transaction cannot be treated as proceeds of crime absent a proved nexus with tainted funds, and attachment must be confined to property or assets actually linked to the alleged criminal proceeds.

---