Money-laundering attachment sustained where school property was linked to diverted donations and tainted transaction chain.

Provisional and confirmed attachment of a school building and underlying land was sustained because the property was traced to funds substantially derived from donations by an unlawful organisation and linked to scheduled money-laundering activity. The Tribunal found that donated funds received by the associated trust had been diverted into construction on land leased from the appellant, and relied on the lease timing, transaction structure, and evidence showing the appellant was not a bona fide stranger to the chain of dealings. The absence of a direct charge against the appellant or the trust, and the later termination of the lease, were insufficient to remove the taint attached to the property.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation of attachment of the school building and the underlying land were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the property was not shown to be proceeds of crime and that the appellant had no complicity in the laundering activity.

Analysis: The attachment was sustained on the basis that the funds traced to the school building were substantially derived from donations made by the Islamic Research Foundation, which had been declared unlawful, and that the relevant activities fell within the scheduled offences under the money-laundering framework. The funds received by the associated trust were found to have been diverted into construction of the school building on land leased from the appellant. The Tribunal also relied on the timing and terms of the lease, the utilisation of the donated funds, and the material indicating that the appellant was not a bona fide stranger to the transaction chain. The appellant's reliance on the lease termination and the absence of a direct charge against him or the trust was held insufficient to displace the taint attached to the property.

Conclusion: The attachment of the property was upheld and the appellant's challenge was rejected.

---