2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 263

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Balesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, Member
Ujjal Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Member, Adjudicating Authority, PMLA – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-2259/KOL/2018|FPA-PMLA-2260/KOL/2018|FPA-PMLA-2261/KOL/2018|FPA-PMLA-2262/KOL/2018|FPA-PMLA-2263/KOL/2018|FPA-PMLA-2264/KOL/2018

Money laundering constitutes a continuing offence that is not restricted to the date of the scheduled offence. The law permits the attachment of properties of equivalent value to the proceeds of crime, regardless of when they were acquired or whether the holder is a formally charged accused.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 4, and 5(1) - Provisional Attachment Order - Money laundering as an independent and continuing offence - Appellants challenged attachment of properties, contending that the predicate offences were committed before inclusion in the schedule of the Act and that properties were acquired prior to the alleged fraud - Held, the offence of money laundering is established when a person engages in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, which is a continuing offence independent of the date of the original criminal activity; inclusion of assets in the attachment process is permissible if those assets represent the value of proceeds of crime, regardless of whether the property was acquired before the predicate act. (Paras 6, 7 and 9)

(B) Property - Attachment of - Scope and ambit - Assets in possession of persons not named as accused in the predicate offence case - Applicability of attachment - The law allows for the attachment of property even in the hands of individuals not formally accused in the underlying criminal activity, provided that the property is identified as the proceeds of crime or equivalent in value - Settlement of financial dues in a separate recovery forum does not automatically render money laundering attachment redundant. (Paras 8 and 9)

Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed against the confirmation of a provisional attachment order of properties valued at over five crores, originating from a case concerning the facilitation of bank loans through forged documents and subsequent siphoning of those funds. Appellants argued that the relevant laws were applied retrospectively, that assets were acquired prior to the offence, and that certain appellants were either discharged from the main criminal case or were never named as accused, warranting the release of their attached properties.

Findings of Court:
The appellate authority held that the definition of proceeds of crime is broad enough to include properties of equivalent value held within the country. It further concluded that the discharge of an individual from the predicate offence does not bar attachment, and the scope of attachment extends to properties held by third parties who are not accused in the main criminal conspiracy.

Issues: The central issues addressed were the retrospective application of anti-money laundering provisions regarding scheduled offences, the legality of attaching assets acquired before the date of the alleged crime, and whether settlement of underlying debt or non-involvement as a named accused in the predicate case warrants the release of attached properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that money laundering is a distinct activity involving the projection of tainted funds as untainted property. Consequently, the attachment provisions are applicable to any property representing the value of those proceeds, irrespective of the acquisition date or the status of the title holder in the predicate criminal litigation.

Result: Appeals dismissed.