Equivalent-value attachment upheld where tainted proceeds were unavailable, despite pending predicate proceedings and no separate accused naming.

Where tainted proceeds are unavailable, attachment may extend to properties of equivalent value, even if those assets were acquired before the alleged crime period, because a narrow reading would defeat the statutory scheme. Pendency of challenges to the predicate offence or related proceedings before the Supreme Court did not by itself invalidate the provisional attachment, since the predicate offence had not been quashed; the attachment was kept subject to the final outcome of those proceedings. Separate naming as an accused in the predicate offence was also unnecessary for provisional attachment if the person was involved in the activity or received proceeds of crime. The Tribunal upheld the attachment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether properties acquired before the alleged crime period could be attached as proceeds of crime when the actual tainted proceeds were not available, (ii) whether pendency of challenge to the predicate offence and related proceedings before the Supreme Court required interference with the attachment, and (iii) whether the absence of a separate naming of one appellant as an accused in the predicate offence invalidated the attachment.

Issue (i): Whether properties acquired before the alleged crime period could be attached as proceeds of crime when the actual tainted proceeds were not available.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime was treated as covering not only property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity, but also property of equivalent value where the tainted assets were unavailable, vanished, or had been siphoned off. The reasoning rejected a narrow reading that would confine attachment only to property purchased after the crime, since that would make the equivalent-value limb redundant and defeat the object of the statute. The attachment of untainted property was therefore permissible where it represented equivalent value to the unavailable proceeds.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether pendency of challenge to the predicate offence and related proceedings before the Supreme Court required interference with the attachment.

Analysis: The pendency of proceedings and any interim protection therein did not extinguish the predicate offence or nullify the foundation for action under the money-laundering law. Since the predicate offence and the proceedings under the statute had not been quashed, the provisional attachment was not liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The Tribunal nevertheless kept the order subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a separate naming of one appellant as an accused in the predicate offence invalidated the attachment.

Analysis: For provisional attachment, it was not necessary that the concerned person must be an accused in the predicate offence; it was sufficient if the person was involved in the activity or was in receipt of proceeds of crime. The fact that the appellant was named in the prosecution complaint under the money-laundering proceedings further negatived the challenge.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the attachment and found no ground to interfere, while making the disposal subject to the ultimate result of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tainted proceeds are unavailable, properties of equivalent value may be attached even if acquired before the crime period, and such attachment is not defeated merely because the predicate proceedings are under challenge or because the person is not separately named as an accused in the predicate offence.

---