Provisional Attachment Order Under PMLA Section 3 Upheld for Gold Smuggling Proceeds Despite No FIR Registered

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the PMLA, 2002, concerning proceeds of crime from gold smuggling. The appellant was implicated through his admissions under section 50(2) and identified as accused no. 10 in the ED's prosecution complaint. The Tribunal held that attachment of property need not be limited to direct accused but extends to persons who have received proceeds of crime. The appellant's contention that no FIR was registered was rejected, as the offence under section 3 of the PMLA is independent. The attachment of gold valued at approximately Rs. 2 crore was upheld, with the appellant permitted to seek separate remedies if excess gold beyond the attachment value is not released. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the legality of the provisional attachment.....