1. Appeal against confirmation of provisional attachment order under PMLA, 2002 — Property purchased during alleged crime period. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman, V. Anandarajan, Member
Kumar Sanjit Krishna – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Guwahati. – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-1341/GWH/2024
1. Appeal against confirmation of provisional attachment order under PMLA, 2002 — Property purchased during alleged crime period. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
2. Appellant argued property acquired before crime cannot be proceeds of crime; respondent argued equivalent value attachable if proceeds vanished. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Appeal dismissed; attachment of equivalent value property valid even if acquired prior to crime. (Para 16 , 17 )
The definition has three limbs: property derived directly/indirectly from crime, the value of any such property, and property equivalent in value held abroad. (Para 14 , 15 )
Yes, under the second limb, if the original proceeds are unavailable, property of equivalent value can be attached even if acquired prior to crime. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Yes, the Supreme Court held that the definition includes the value of any such property, allowing attachment of equivalent value property when proceeds are not available. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
The middle part ('the value of any such property') permits attachment of any property of equivalent value when the original proceeds are vanished or siphoned off. (Para 14 , 15 )
FINAL ORER
13.08.2025
This appeal has been preferred to challenge the order dated27.05.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 20.12.2023.
2. The case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002’) was initiated based on FIR No. 21/2020 dated 20.09.2020 registered by CID, Assam Police for offences under Sections 120B , 119,120,166,201,204,212,406,409,420,461,506 & 34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 66(B) of Information Technology Act, apart from the offence under local laws prevalent in the State of Assam and the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The charge sheet in reference to the FIR followed by the supplementary charge sheet was filed by the CID, Assam. The charge sheet revealed that the written test for the recruitment of 597 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) of Assam Police scheduled on 20.09.2020 had to be cancelled due to the leak of the question paper on WhatsApp. Appellant was one of the person named as an accused, apart from 41 other persons.
4. The investigation under the Act of 2002 was caused after recording of the ECIR where statements under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act of 2002 were recorded. The respondents then caused Provisional Attachment Order to attach the properties of the appellant to the tune of Rs.16,60,000/-.
5. The appeal has been preferred on many grounds. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he would be pressing only one ground for challenge to the impugned order and accordingly we would record arguments of counsel for the appellant.
Arguments of counsel for the appellant:
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property under attachment was acquired prior to the commission of crime thus could not have been taken to be the proceeds of crime. However, ignoring the aforesaid facts and without showing any co- relation of the attached property with the commission of crime, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order. According to counsel, what can be provisionally attached is the proceeds of crime and not any property of the person or the accused. However, in the instant case, the respondents ignored the aforesaid. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant cited several judgments of the High Courts and Supreme Court to support his argument where it was held that the property acquired prior to the commission of crime cannot be attached and on the strength of those judgments, the prayer was made to allow the appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant did not contest the appeal in reference to allegation against the appellant for his involvement in the commission of crime. It is despite the fact that the specific allegation for involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime between 11.04.2018 to 19.09.2020 exist. The property attached in the hands of the appellant was purchased on 25.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.16,60,000/-. The allegation against the appellant was for receipt of Rs.40,00,000/- out of the proceeds of crime of Rs.6,13,74,440/-. No arguments in reference to the allegation were made despite an opportunity and accordingly we would proceed to deal with the only issue raised by the appellant for our consideration.
Arguments of counsel for the respondents:
9. The learned counsel for the respondents contested the only issue raised by the appellant and submitted that the provisionally attached property was purchased during the currency of commission of crime between 11.04.2018 to 19.09.2020. The appellant has received Rs.40,00,000/- out of the proceeds of crime of Rs.6,13,74,440/-.
10. The examination for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police had to be cancelled due to the leak of the question paper on Whatsapp. It was in conspiracy with many accused. Names of 42 accused involved in the commission of crime were revealed. It is with a further statemen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top