Statutory presumption in money-laundering attachment cases survives unless the accused proves a lawful source of property

In proceedings under the money-laundering law, the statutory presumption operated where the appellants were linked to the underlying offence and could not prove a lawful source for the attached properties. Their explanation that the properties were acquired from agriculture income or salary contribution was rejected because no bank statements, tax returns, or other supporting material were produced. The Tribunal found that the reverse burden was not discharged and that there was no reliable basis to dislodge the finding that the properties were connected with proceeds of crime. The confirmation of provisional attachment therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties could be interfered with when the appellants failed to establish a lawful source of funds and a credible explanation for acquisition of the properties; and whether the appellants had rebutted the statutory presumption under the money-laundering law.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant was arrayed as an accused in the underlying investigation and that the attached properties were acquired during or around the relevant period without supporting documentary proof of independent income. The plea that the properties stood in the name of the wife and were acquired from agriculture income or salary contribution was found unsubstantiated, as no bank statements, tax returns, or other material were produced. In the absence of proof of source, the Tribunal applied the statutory presumption against the accused and held that the appellants had not discharged the reverse burden cast upon them. The Tribunal further held that the record did not show any reliable basis to dislodge the finding that the properties were liable to attachment as connected with proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confirmation of provisional attachment failed, and the properties remained liable to attachment.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the attachment order on the ground that the appellants did not rebut the statutory presumption or establish a lawful source for acquisition of the properties.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the money-laundering law, once material indicates involvement in the scheduled offence and acquisition of property without proved lawful source, the statutory presumption operates and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it with credible evidence.

---