The Tribunal held that the appellant's admitted receipt of funds...

The Tribunal held that the appellant's admitted receipt of funds from the main accused, coupled with the absence of any loan document or proof of repayment, showed that the amount was not a genuine loan but proceeds of crime in the appellant's hands. As the actual tainted funds were unavailable, attachment of property of equivalent value was permissible. It further held that property acquired before the scheduled offence is not immune from attachment where it is proceeded against as equivalent value property, because the definition of proceeds of crime includes the value of such property and a narrower reading would defeat the Act's object. The appeal was dismissed and the provisional attachment confirmed.

---