Appellants challenged the provisional attachment of their...

Appellants challenged the provisional attachment of their immovable and movable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), alleging lack of evidence that the properties were acquired from proceeds of crime. The court held that the appellants failed to provide reliable proof of their claimed sources of income like agriculture, rent, and contracts to explain the actual purchase consideration. Income tax returns filed belatedly after investigations were insufficient. Under PMLA, the burden lies on the noticee to show the sources of income/assets. The presumptions u/ss 23 and 24 operate against the appellants. The court rejected the contention that the definition of "proceeds of crime" was not considered, as the pre-amendment definition covered any property derived directly/indirectly from criminal activity related to scheduled offences. The attached property's value was rightly determined as Rs. 60,00,000/-, not Rs. 4,37,500/-. Finding no reason to interfere, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal.