Provisional attachment under money-laundering law sustained where buyers failed to prove lawful source of property acquisition.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was sustained where investigation materials showed a traceable link between the properties and proceeds of crime. Statements recorded during investigation, the history of land transfers from company assets, and the absence of credible bank records, loan documents, or other proof of valid consideration supported the finding that the assets had been diverted or shielded through namesake transfers or without consideration. The appellants failed to prove a lawful, independent source of acquisition, so the challenge to attachment failed and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment of the appellants' properties under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 was justified on the ground that the properties were traceable to proceeds of crime and the appellants failed to establish acquisition from lawful sources.

Analysis: The attachment was sustained on the basis of statements recorded during investigation, the admitted history of land transactions originating from the company's assets, and the absence of reliable documentary proof showing payment of valid consideration by the appellants. The materials relied upon indicated that the properties were transferred through namesake or without consideration to divert or shield assets linked to the predicate offences. The explanatory source details furnished by the appellants were not supported by bank records, loan documents, or other credible proof, and were found inconsistent with the investigation record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed; the appellants did not dislodge the finding that the properties were liable to attachment as proceeds of crime.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed and the provisional attachment as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the investigation materials establish a traceable link between the attached property and proceeds of crime, the person in possession of the property must satisfactorily prove a lawful and independent source of acquisition failing which confirmation of provisional attachment is warranted.

---