Value of proceeds of crime can extend to earlier-acquired property; section 50 statements remain usable despite retraction.

Property acquired before the scheduled offence period may still be attached as value of proceeds of crime where the direct proceeds are unavailable, and the attachment was sustained on that basis for the main assets. Statements recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were held admissible, and a belated or unsupported retraction did not prevent reliance on them where corroborated by other material. By contrast, the security deposit lying with the criminal court stood on a different footing, and the attachment over that amount was set aside because the facts did not justify a continuing apprehension of concealment or transfer.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether properties acquired before the period of the scheduled offence could be attached as proceeds of crime or as value of proceeds of crime; (ii) whether statements recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including retracted statements, could be relied upon; (iii) whether the provisional attachment could be sustained in respect of the security deposit lying with the criminal court.

Issue (i): whether properties acquired before the period of the scheduled offence could be attached as proceeds of crime or as value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded that most of the immovable and movable properties were acquired during the relevant period from the commission derived from the fraudulent gold-loan transactions, and that even where a property pre-dated the offence period, the loan taken for its construction or acquisition had been repaid from the illicit commission. The judgment further held that the statutory concept of proceeds of crime is not confined only to direct tainted property and may extend to value of such property where the direct proceeds are not available.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed, and the attachment of the properties, other than the limited relief granted separately, was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether statements recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including retracted statements, could be relied upon.

Analysis: The judgment found that the statement of the appellant contained material admissions, that no formal retraction had been made, and that the belated denial of voluntariness lacked credence. It also held that statements under section 50 are admissible and may be relied upon in proceedings under the Act, including retracted statements where supported by other material.

Conclusion: The objection to reliance on the section 50 statement was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the provisional attachment could be sustained in respect of the security deposit lying with the criminal court.

Analysis: The judgment held that the amount deposited with the Magistrate as bail/security stood on a different footing, and that the apprehension of concealment or alienation was not sufficient to sustain attachment on the facts of the case. The earlier precedent relied upon in support of this view was followed, and the limited attachment in respect of that amount was set aside.

Conclusion: The attachment over the security deposit of Rs. 50 lakh was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining the attachment in substance, while granting relief only in respect of the security deposit lying with the criminal court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, property may be attached as value of proceeds of crime even if acquired before the offence period, section 50 statements can be relied upon notwithstanding retraction where supported by material, but attachment requires a factual basis for apprehension of concealment or transfer.

---