AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment....

AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment. The Tribunal held that where alleged proceeds have vanished or are not recoverable from the accused, immovable property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached; the impugned order reflects attachment for equivalent value, not a declaration that the property itself constitutes direct proceeds. The appellant failed to disclose the source of funds, evidence showed cash deposits by the appellant's father were routed through joint and appellant accounts to effect payment, and the cash source remained unexplained. No ground for interference was found with the attachment order, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.