The Tribunal explained that "proceeds of crime" under Section...

The Tribunal explained that "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) can extend to property of equivalent value where the actual tainted property is not traceable, applying a three-limb reading of the definition and supporting authority. It held that provisional attachment may therefore be sustained on equivalent-value property if a prima facie nexus with the scheduled offence exists. The appellants' claim that a subcontractor was responsible for the forged invoices was rejected because contractual responsibility remained with the appellants and the asserted transfers were not proved by reliable records. The Tribunal also found that the contractual deduction for non-deposit of drums did not undermine the attachment, and it rejected the challenge that the adjudication order was merely a template order.