Burden of proof in money laundering attachment: unsubstantiated investment claims fail, and equivalent-value property may still be attached.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Tribunal held that a person claiming investment returns must produce contemporaneous proof of a genuine investment arrangement and explain the source of the funds said to have been invested. As no memorandum, agreement, or credible documentary support was produced, and the statutory burden under Section 24 was not rebutted, the claim of innocent investment was rejected and attachment on the basis of proceeds of crime was sustained. The Tribunal also held that property of equivalent value may be attached even if the original tainted assets are not traceable, so the fact that some assets predated the crime period did not prevent attachment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant established that the amounts received from the tainted person were her own investment returns and not proceeds of crime, so as to dislodge the attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether properties acquired prior to the crime period could nevertheless be attached as property of equivalent value under the definition of proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant established that the amounts received from the tainted person were her own investment returns and not proceeds of crime, so as to dislodge the attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant claimed to be an investor and asserted that the sums received were linked to her own investments routed through banking channels. The Tribunal found that no documentary material such as a memorandum of understanding, agreement, or comparable contemporaneous record was produced to substantiate any genuine investment arrangement. The appellant also failed to explain the source of the funds allegedly invested, particularly the cash component, and the account treatment in the concerns of the accused indicated income or expenses rather than investment. In view of the statutory burden under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the appellant did not rebut the inference arising from the investigation.

Conclusion: The claim of being an innocent investor was rejected, and the attachment based on proceeds of crime was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether properties acquired prior to the crime period could nevertheless be attached as property of equivalent value under the definition of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled interpretation of the expression "proceeds of crime" to hold that it covers not only tainted property directly derived from criminal activity but also property of equivalent value where the original proceeds are not traceable. On that basis, the temporal argument that some properties predated the crime period did not by itself defeat attachment, because equivalent-value attachment is permissible under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The objection to attachment of pre-crime properties was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment orders failed in entirety, and the attachments were sustained, with the clarification that the orders would remain subject to the final outcome of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, once the appellant fails to prove a legitimate source and nature of the funds, the burden under Section 24 is not discharged, and attachment may extend to property of equivalent value even if the original proceeds are not traceable or some attached assets predate the crime period.

---