Equivalent-value attachment under SAFEMA upheld where tainted property was unavailable and nexus evidence satisfied statutory belief requirements.

The Tribunal held that "proceeds of crime" under SAFEMA is broad enough to include the value of tainted property, permitting attachment of equivalent-value assets when the original proceeds are unavailable. It found that such attachment is not confined to property held abroad and that prior acquisition of the assets did not by itself defeat attachment where they were proceeded against as equivalent-value property. The Tribunal also held that the material before the authorities satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to believe, and that the reverse burden under the Act required the appellant to show the properties were untainted. The attachment and its confirmation were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were invalid because the properties were not directly derived from the scheduled offence, were acquired before the alleged crime period, and were attached only as equivalent-value properties after the alleged proceeds of crime were not traceable; and whether the statutory requirements of reason to believe and proof of nexus were satisfied.

Analysis: The definition of "proceeds of crime" under section 2(1)(u) was held to be wide enough to include not only property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also the value of such property. The expression "value" in section 2(1)(zb) was relied upon to support attachment of property of equivalent value where the tainted property is unavailable. The Tribunal accepted the view that the statutory scheme permits attachment of alternative property of equivalent value and that such attachment is not confined to cases where the property is held abroad. It further held that acquisition prior to the alleged offence period does not by itself protect a property from attachment when it is proceeded against as equivalent-value property. The Tribunal also found that the material before the provisional attachment authority and the adjudicating authority disclosed sufficient reason to believe under sections 5(1) and 8(1), and that the reverse burden under the Act required the appellant to establish that the properties were untainted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment failed; the attachment and its confirmation were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---