Equivalent-value attachment under the PMLA was upheld because...

Equivalent-value attachment under the PMLA was upheld because section 2(1)(u) includes not only property derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property, allowing attachment of untainted substitute assets when the proceeds of crime are not traceable. The Tribunal rejected the argument that such attachment is confined to assets held abroad and accepted that prior acquisition of the attached property is no bar if it represents equivalent value. It also found adequate statutory reason to believe, held that the burden shifted to the noticee to show the property was not proceeds of crime, and confirmed the attachment.