Provisional attachment under money-laundering law may reach equivalent-value property even if acquired before the scheduled offence.

Provisional attachment under the money-laundering law was said to remain valid despite an interim order in the predicate criminal case because that order only adjourned trial and did not quash the offence, grant discharge, or result in acquittal. On the coram issue, the competence of a single-member Adjudicating Authority was left open pending the Supreme Court's final ruling, so the order was not disturbed on that ground. The text also states that proceeds of crime may include property of equivalent value, so attachment is not barred merely because the property was acquired before the scheduled offence, if the statutory conditions for equivalent-value attachment are satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the provisional attachment could be interfered with on the basis of an interim order passed in the predicate criminal case; (ii) whether an order passed by a single member of the Adjudicating Authority was vitiated for want of proper coram; and (iii) whether property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value.

Issue (i): whether the provisional attachment could be interfered with on the basis of an interim order passed in the predicate criminal case.

Analysis: The interim order in the predicate proceedings did not stay the criminal case itself but merely directed adjournment of the trial. In the absence of quashing of the predicate offence, discharge, or acquittal, the provisional attachment made in accordance with the statutory procedure could not be disturbed on that ground.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the interim order failed.

Issue (ii): whether an order passed by a single member of the Adjudicating Authority was vitiated for want of proper coram.

Analysis: Divergent views of different High Courts on the competence of a single member of the Adjudicating Authority were noticed, and the issue was stated to be pending before the Supreme Court. Pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court, the appeal was disposed of with the clear understanding that the eventual decision of the Supreme Court would govern the matter.

Conclusion: The order was not set aside on this ground, and the issue was kept subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings.

Issue (iii): whether property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence could still be attached as proceeds of crime or as property of equivalent value.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as having a wider statutory reach, including the value of any such property and property of equivalent value where the tainted property was not available. On that interpretation, attachment was not confined to property acquired after the offence, and earlier-acquired property could be proceeded against where the statutory conditions for equivalent-value attachment were met.

Conclusion: The objection to attachment of the prior-acquired property was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation were sustained, and the appeal was disposed of without interference, while remaining subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court on the coram issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime are unavailable, and such attachment is not defeated merely because the property was acquired before the scheduled offence.

---