Money-laundering attachment can proceed against beneficially owned property even if the holder is not accused in the scheduled offence.

Attachment under the money-laundering law may be sustained on substantially probable cause to believe that property represents proceeds of crime, without proof beyond doubt. The Tribunal held that a person need not be an accused in the scheduled offence for attachment to proceed, so non-impleadment in that case did not bar action. It also found the audit material and statement evidence sufficient to satisfy the statutory reason-to-believe requirement at the provisional stage. Beneficial ownership and ownership interest were enough to sustain attachment of company property, and the corporate veil objection failed. The appeals were dismissed and the attachment confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants could avoid attachment merely because they were not accused in the scheduled offence case; (ii) whether the material on record, including the Casana audit report and the statement of Christian Michel, furnished the requisite reason to believe for attachment and confirmation; (iii) whether the attached property of the company could be sustained on the basis of the beneficial ownership and ownership interest of Siddharth Sareen.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants could avoid attachment merely because they were not accused in the scheduled offence case.

Analysis: The attachment and confiscation scheme under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is directed against proceeds of crime wherever they are found, and it is not necessary that the person in whose hands the property is found must also be an in the scheduled offence case. The existence of a pending charge-sheet and prosecution under the money-laundering law was sufficient for consideration of attachment in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected; the appellants' non-impleadment as accused in the scheduled offence did not bar attachment.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record, including the Casana audit report and the statement of Christian Michel, furnished the requisite reason to believe for attachment and confirmation.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the audit material, supplied through the defence of the principal accused and coupled with the statement acknowledging the correctness of the amounts transferred, constituted sufficient material at the provisional attachment stage. The authority was not required to prove the proceeds of crime beyond doubt, but only to show substantially probable cause to form the statutory belief required for attachment and confirmation.

Conclusion: The requirement of reason to believe under the money-laundering law was held to be satisfied.

Issue (iii): Whether the attached property of the company could be sustained on the basis of the beneficial ownership and ownership interest of Siddharth Sareen.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated property under the money-laundering law as including ownership rights and beneficial interests, and held that proceeds of crime can be reached irrespective of the name in which they are held. In view of the admitted substantial ownership interest and beneficial control, the corporate personality argument was held to be unavailable, and continued attachment was viewed as consistent with the statutory object of preserving proceeds of crime pending trial.

Conclusion: The attachment of the company's property was upheld and the corporate veil objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for with the impugned attachment and confirmation order, and the appeals failed in their entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: For attachment under the money-laundering law, the authority need only have substantially probable cause to believe that the property represents proceeds of crime, and such property may be attached and retained even in the hands of a person who is not an accused in the scheduled offence, including through beneficial ownership structures.

---