The AT dismissed the appeal, upholding the attachment of the...

The AT dismissed the appeal, upholding the attachment of the impugned property under PMLA. It was held that the property, though not directly acquired from proceeds of crime, qualifies for attachment as equivalent value property due to siphoning of criminal proceeds. The twin conditions under section 5(1) PMLA for attachment were satisfied based on prima facie evidence of bank fraud and conspiracy involving the appellant company's directors and their families. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention against retrospective application of the 2009 amendment, clarifying the relevant date for scheduled offences is when the property is projected as untainted. Further, the property was validly attached despite the appellant not being named as accused in the chargesheet, given their possession and connection to the proceeds of crime. Consequently, the property remains confiscated, and the appeal was dismissed in favor of the respondent ED.