PMLA attachment confirmed where properties were treated as proceeds of crime and no perversity or legal error was shown.

The Madras HC sustained confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, finding no substantial question of law, perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence in the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that the Enforcement Directorate had examined the material, recorded statements under Section 50, and formed the view that the properties were proceeds of crime reinvested in immovable assets and related acquisitions. The objection that some properties were acquired before the Act was already considered by the Tribunal and did not justify interference. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate order confirming attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 warranted interference, including the challenge to attachment of properties acquired prior to the Act.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against the Tribunal's final order confirming the provisional attachment of properties alleged to be derived from proceeds of crime arising out of scheduled offences. The record reflected that the Enforcement Directorate had examined the material, recorded statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and formed a view that the properties represented illicit gains reinvested in immovable assets and related acquisitions. The Court found that the Tribunal had already considered the grounds raised, including the objection based on the date of acquisition of properties, and that no substantial question of law, perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the appellate order confirming attachment was sustained.

---