Equivalent-value attachment under money-laundering law can stand even where the property is jointly owned and proceeds are dissipated.

Provisional attachment under the money-laundering statute was sustained where investigation and recorded statements disclosed a prima facie case of scheduled offences, proceeds of crime, and dissipation of those proceeds. The attached asset was treated as property of equivalent value, not as direct proceeds of crime, which permits attachment when the illicit proceeds are unavailable or have been laundered. Joint ownership did not defeat attachment because it was confined to the accused's identifiable share or equivalent value and did not disturb the spouse's independent interest. The source of purchase and date of acquisition were held irrelevant on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of property for equivalent value under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was sustainable, including where the attached property stood in joint ownership and the proceeds of crime were stated to have been dissipated.

Analysis: The attachment was upheld on the footing that the investigation and recorded statements disclosed a prima facie case of scheduled offences, generation of proceeds of crime, and dissipation of such proceeds. The attached property was not treated as direct proceeds of crime but as property attached for equivalent value under the statutory definition, which permits attachment where the proceeds are not available or have been laundered. The challenge based on joint ownership also failed because the attachment was confined to the appellant's share/value equivalent and did not extend to the spouse's independent share. The source of purchase and the date of acquisition were held to be irrelevant in a case of equivalent-value attachment once the proceeds of crime had been shown to be unavailable.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was valid, and the appeals were not liable to succeed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the attachment order and left the impugned confirmation of attachment undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceeds of crime are shown to have been dissipated, property of equivalent value may be attached under the money-laundering statute, and a joint owner cannot defeat such attachment when the measure is confined to the accused's identifiable share or equivalent value.

---