Proceeds of crime can include property value and assets in another's name, with fair hearing requirements satisfied.

Fair hearing under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was satisfied where the show cause notice, complaint and relied-upon documents were served, and receipt was not credibly denied; the objection of denial of natural justice was rejected. Property acquired before the alleged offence period could still be attached where the order treated it as proceeds of crime or value thereof, because the statutory concept extends to both direct proceeds and their value; that challenge failed. Jointly held property in the wife's name was also liable to attachment where the funds were traced to the principal offender, since attachment is not confined to property standing in the accused's name. The provisional attachment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were denied notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard before confirmation of attachment; (ii) whether properties acquired before the alleged period of offence could be attached as proceeds of crime or value thereof; (iii) whether property standing jointly in the name of the wife, who was not ed in the scheduled offence, could be attached.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were denied notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard before confirmation of attachment.

Analysis: The record showed service of the show cause notice, the complaint and relied upon documents, including an acknowledgment signed by the appellant in custody. The appellant did not categorically deny his signatures or receipt of the documents. The wife had also participated before the adjudicating authority, and the Tribunal found that the requirements of fair hearing under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Conclusion: The plea of denial of notice and violation of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether properties acquired before the alleged period of offence could be attached as proceeds of crime or value thereof.

Analysis: The attachment order and the confirmation order stated that the properties were attached as proceeds of crime or value thereof. The Tribunal held that under the statutory definition, direct proceeds of crime and their value both fall within the ambit of proceeds of crime, and therefore the date of acquisition was not where attachment was based on value.

Conclusion: The challenge based on prior acquisition of the properties failed.

Issue (iii): Whether property standing jointly in the name of the wife, who was not accused in the scheduled offence, could be attached.

Analysis: The evidence showed that properties were acquired in the name of the wife from funds generated by the principal , and the sweep of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not confined only to a person named as an accused in the scheduled offence. Property held in any name can be attached if it is involved in money laundering or represents proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The attachment of jointly held property was upheld and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No ground was found to interfere with the confirmation of provisional attachment, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property may be provisionally attached and confirmed if it represents proceeds of crime or its value, even when held in another person's name, provided the person affected was afforded the statutory opportunity of hearing.

---