Equivalent-value attachment upheld when proceeds of crime were dissipated and joint ownership did not defeat limited attachment.

Property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached where proceeds of crime have been dissipated or are no longer traceable, and the source or date of purchase does not defeat attachment when the order is not against the direct tainted asset but against substitute value. The Tribunal also held that joint ownership does not bar attachment where the order is confined to the accused's liable share or the value attributable to alleged proceeds of crime, and the non-accused co-owner's share is not attached. On these facts, the provisional attachment was sustained and interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property could be provisionally attached for equivalent value when the proceeds of crime were not available in traceable form. (ii) Whether the attachment of a jointly held property could be interfered with on the ground that one co-owner was not an accused and her share was not liable.

Issue (i): Whether property could be provisionally attached for equivalent value when the proceeds of crime were not available in traceable form.

Analysis: The factual foundation recorded in the order showed that the appellants had generated and retained proceeds of crime from the contract transaction and that the tainted funds had been dissipated. The legal position applied was that where the proceeds of crime are no longer available, attachment can extend to other property of equivalent value. The source of purchase and the date of purchase do not defeat such attachment when the attachment is not of the direct tainted asset but of value equivalent to the dissipated proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge to attachment on this ground failed and the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment of a jointly held property could be interfered with on the ground that one co-owner was not an accused and her share was not liable.

Analysis: The order clarified that the share of the co-owner spouse was not being attached and that the attachment was confined only to the extent corresponding to the appellant's share and the amount of alleged proceeds of crime. Since the attachment was limited to equivalent value and not to the entire joint property, the objection based on joint ownership did not assist the appellants.

Conclusion: The joint-ownership objection was rejected and the finding was against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the provisional attachment and declined interference, holding that equivalent-value attachment was permissible on the facts and that the joint ownership plea did not vitiate the order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceeds of crime have been dissipated or are unavailable, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached under the money-laundering framework, and a joint owner cannot defeat such attachment when the order is confined to the liable share or value attributable to the accused.

---