Provisional attachment under PMLA upheld as equivalent-value assets and prima facie laundering nexus were established.

Provisional attachment under the money-laundering law was sustained because the record disclosed a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime and a risk that assets could be concealed or frustrated, so a separate surviving predicate case was not a precondition. Property of equivalent value could also be attached, including assets acquired earlier or held by family members, where direct tainted assets were unavailable and the statutory presumption was not rebutted. The adjudication and appellate orders were upheld because they reflected due consideration of the material, and the challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's constitution was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence or alleged non-survival of a scheduled offence vitiated the provisional attachment and confirmation proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether properties purchased before the alleged crime period, or held by family members, could be attached as value equivalent to proceeds of crime and whether the statutory presumption was rebutted; (iii) Whether the adjudication and appellate orders suffered from want of application of mind or invalid constitution of the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the absence or alleged non-survival of a scheduled offence vitiated the provisional attachment and confirmation proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The record showed that the enforcement action rested on material gathered during investigation of the coal levy scam, including FIR material, subsequent police action, complaints, diaries, digital evidence and statements recorded under the Act. The Court relied on the settled position that registration or pendency of a separate predicate case is not a precondition for provisional attachment, and that action under Section 5 may proceed on the basis of material indicating proceeds of crime and a likelihood of concealment or frustration of proceedings. The later registration of additional crime material was treated as supporting, not defeating, the attachment process.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence or non-survival of a scheduled offence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether properties purchased before the alleged crime period, or held by family members, could be attached as value equivalent to proceeds of crime and whether the statutory presumption was rebutted.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the definition of proceeds of crime includes not only directly derived property but also property of equivalent value. It held that where direct tainted assets are untraceable or have been layered, substituted attachment may extend to other properties, including those acquired earlier, if they represent equivalent value. The Court also accepted the use of corroborated diary entries, WhatsApp chats, bank and property records, and statements under Section 50 as forming a prima facie nexus between the illicit collections and the attached assets. The Court further held that the appellants failed to displace the statutory presumption under Section 24 or establish a credible lawful source for the funds used in the properties.

Conclusion: The attachment of the properties, including those treated as equivalent value, was upheld and the statutory presumption was not rebutted.

Issue (iii): Whether the adjudication and appellate orders suffered from want of application of mind or invalid constitution of the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: The Court found that both the adjudicating and appellate orders contained detailed consideration of the rival materials, the nature of the scam, the role attributed to the appellants, and the properties in question. It rejected the objection that the orders were merely templated or mechanical. The Court also rejected the contention that a single-member functioning of the Adjudicating Authority rendered the proceedings void, holding that the statutory issue was no longer open in view of prior judicial interpretation.

Conclusion: The procedural and coram-based challenges were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court sustained the confirmation of attachment under the money-laundering law, holding that the material disclosed a prima facie laundering chain, that substitute attachment of equivalent value was permissible, and that no jurisdictional or procedural infirmity warranted interference.

Ratio Decidendi: For provisional attachment under the money-laundering law, the authority may proceed on material showing a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime and a risk of frustration of proceedings, and may attach property of equivalent value even if the directly tainted asset is unavailable or the property was acquired earlier, provided the statutory safeguards and recorded satisfaction are met.

---