JUDGMENT

R.K. Gauba, J.—These five appeals presented under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”, for short) against more or less similar orders of the appellate tribunal (constituted under Section 25), such orders having been rendered on appeals of the respondents (“banks”) vis-à-vis the orders of provisional attachment issued by the enforcement officers under Section 5, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8, give rise, inter alia, to certain common questions of law of import concerning nature of property that may be attached under this special law as indeed the conflict arising from claim of bonafide acquisition of interest by third parties. Hence, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

The Issues

2. The measure of attachment of property involved in “money laundering”, it essentially representing “proceeds of crime” (as defined in law), is provided to ensure that the ultimate objective of “confiscation” of such ill-gotten property be not frustrated, the power and jurisdiction to order confiscation being vested in the Special Court. As would be seen at length in later part of this judgment, the