It is contended that in a case where the PAO is passed by resorting to the second proviso under section 5(1), what can be attached is the property involved in Money laundering. It is pointed out that the properties here under are all acquired much prior to the FIR and hence the said properties cannot be by any strength of imagination termed as the property involved in money laundering. The attachment thereof is, therefore, impermissible. It is contended that where there is no chargesheet filed, the property cannot be attached by invoking the concept of “value of any such property”. The contention that in a case where the charge sheet is not filed the concept of interpretation of definition of proceeds of crime and including therein "the value of any such property" i.e. the value of any proceeds of crime, does not get attracted, is also unsustainable. It is contended that the proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. It is further submitted that in the present case as the attachment is not in respect of proceeds of crime, but in respect of the property involved in money laundering there is no question of applying the term "value of any such property", as appearing in section 2(l)(u). The argument is incorrect. The concept of money laundering revolves around, term “proceeds of crime”. Thus an act of any person involving in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would be covered as an act of money laundering. Thus in any of the case referred in section 3 of PMLA, in relation to the proceeds of crime would be covered as “money laundering”, irrespective of the fact where any such proceeds of crime are already projected as untainted or are in the process of being projected as untainted. The enactment is for tracing and confiscating the properties derived from or involved in money laundering. The definition of the proceeds of crime is deliberately kept very wide. The reason for the same is not far to seek. The nature of activity in relation to dealing with proceeds of crime by the criminals and their associate, would demonstrate the purpose. The proceeds earned from the criminal activity of the scheduled offences are not necessarily kept or found in its original form. Such proceeds are disguised and layered, so that the origin thereof is not seen. The object is also to dispose of the proceeds so as to eliminate the possibility of the investigating agency gathering the evidence of the criminal activities. Thus in a case where the properties are converted, siphoned, extinguished or suppressed, the criminals or their associates cannot be let off to enjoy the gain of the proceeds of crime. In such an event the converted form of the proceeds of crime is liable to be attached. Similarly in a case where the illegal gain which was derived by the criminals and their associates, is extinguished or cannot be traced the other properties of the criminals/ their associates can be taken charge of and the attachment thereof is justified atleast till the investigation are going on and till the tria I of money laundering is concluded.
