Equivalent value attachment under PMLA upheld for property acquired before the crime period when proceeds of crime are unavailable.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached where proceeds of crime are not traceable, even if the asset was acquired before the crime period. The Tribunal relied on the broad construction of "proceeds of crime" and rejected the objection based on pre-crime acquisition. It also found no basis to interfere with the confirmed attachment because the criminal case was still pending, there was no discharge or acquittal, and the material linked the appellant to the alleged smuggling activity. The attachment order was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property acquired before the crime period could still be provisionally attached as equivalent value of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the appellant had shown any basis to interfere with the confirmed attachment order in view of the pending criminal case and the material linking him to the alleged smuggling activity.

Issue (i): Whether property acquired before the crime period could still be provisionally attached as equivalent value of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the later judicial interpretation of the expression "proceeds of crime" to hold that the definition is broad enough to include not only tainted property but also property of equivalent value where the original proceeds are not traceable. It accepted that the legislative scheme permits attachment of other property of equivalent value even if such property was acquired prior to the crime period, where the proceeds of crime are unavailable.

Conclusion: The challenge to attachment on the ground that some properties were acquired before the crime period was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had shown any basis to interfere with the confirmed attachment order in view of the pending criminal case and the material linking him to the alleged smuggling activity.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the criminal case against the appellant was still pending and there was no order of discharge or acquittal. It also accepted the respondent's case that the appellant was alleged to be involved in the smuggling operation and that the attachment was based on proceeds of crime or property of equivalent value. In the absence of material establishing innocence or any legal infirmity in the attachment, no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The attachment order was upheld and the appellant's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed and the confirmation of provisional attachment remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached when the proceeds of crime are not traceable, even if the property was acquired before the crime period.

---