PMLA attachment survives death of accused; Special Court is the proper forum for confiscation or release orders.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as a civil action that does not automatically fail on the alleged offender's death. Service of notice on the legal heir in possession of the property was held sufficient, and attachment of property representing proceeds of crime or equivalent value was accepted. Where the trial could not be concluded because of death, the statutory scheme required the claimant or Director to approach the Special Court for orders on confiscation or release. The challenge to the attachment on the ground of death was rejected, and the parties were left to pursue the remedy before the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were invalid because the alleged offender had died before the attachment order was passed. (ii) Whether the appellant was required to move the Special Court under section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for appropriate orders regarding the attached property.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were invalid because the alleged offender had died before the attachment order was passed.

Analysis: The attachment was treated as a civil action under the statute and not as a proceeding that automatically abates on the death of the accused. The Court noted that the notice requirement under section 8(1) could be met by serving the legal heir who held the property on behalf of the deceased person. It also found that the attached property was only to the extent of the alleged proceeds of crime and that attachment of equivalent value was permissible under the wide definition of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the death of the alleged offender was rejected, and the attachment was not held invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was required to move the Special Court under section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for appropriate orders regarding the attached property.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 8(5), 8(6), and 8(7) was read as providing a distinct course where the trial cannot be concluded because of the death of the accused. In that situation, the Director or a person claiming entitlement may approach the Special Court, which may then pass appropriate orders of confiscation or release on the basis of the material before it.

Conclusion: The appellant was directed to pursue the remedy before the Special Court under section 8(7).

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed to disturb the attachment, and the parties were left to work out their remedies before the Special Court under the statutory mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provisional attachment and adjudication may continue against property linked to proceeds of crime even after the alleged offender's death, and where the trial cannot be concluded because of death, section 8(7) provides the proper forum for orders on confiscation or release.

---