1 fa527-529.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2010 Mr. Radha Mohan Lakhotia, ) Indian National and Citizen, ) Aged 45 Years, ) r/at: A:4/501, Alakh CHS Limited, ) Sector 19A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. )... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Director, ) PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, ) Ministry of Finance, ) Department of Revenue, ) having his office at 2nd floor, Mittal ) Chambers, Nariman Point, ) Mumbai 400 021. )... Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2010 Mr. Radha Mohan Lakhotia (HUF) ) Through its Karta, Radha Mohan Lakhotia, ) having its office at A:4/502, ) Alakh CHS Limited, ) Sector 19A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. )... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Director, ) PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, ) Ministry of Finance, ) Department of Revenue, ) having his office at 2nd floor, Mittal ) 2 fa527-529.sxw Chambers, Nariman Point, ) Mumbai 400 021. )... Respondent FIRST APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2010 Mrs. Asha Lakhotia, ) Indian National and Citizen, ) Aged 43 Years, ) r/at: A:4/501, Alakh CHS Limited, ) Sector 19A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. )... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Director, ) PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, ) Ministry of Finance, ) Department of Revenue, ) having his office at 2nd floor, Mittal ) Chambers, Nariman Point, ) Mumbai 400 021. )... Respondent Mr. Vikram Nankani with Sushant Murthy & Sagar Kulkarni i/b. Madhur Baya for the appellants. Mr. Rajeev Awasthi with N.R.Prajapati i/b. Shri A.S.Rao for Respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- AUGUST 5, 2010 JUDGMENT:(Per A.M.Khanwilkar,J) 1. Heard Counsel for the parties at length. By consent, we are 3 fa527-529.sxw finally disposing of the three appeals by this common Judgment and Order as the questions involved therein are overlapping. 2. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, New Delhi dated November 23, 2009 in appeals filed by the Appellants herein to challenge the order of the Adjudicatory Authority at New Delhi on Complaint Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 2007 dated 1st June, 2007, which in turn confirms the provisional attachment order passed by the Deputy Director, Mumbai Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement against the Appellants herein under section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002 for the sake of brevity) read with Notification No. GSR.441(E)dated 1st July, 2005. 3. Briefly stated, sometime on 8th December, 2006, a complaint was filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotic Control Bureau(for short “the NCB”) bearing Complaint No. NDPS Spl. Case 192/2006. As a consequence of the said complaint, the Deputy Director, incharge of Mumbai Zonal Office, issued the impugned 4 fa527-529.sxw provisional attachment orders against each of the Appellants. He not only took into account the copy of the abovesaid complaint but also statements of bank accounts, report forwarded by the NCB and statements of the Appellants. After considering the material available with him he was of the view that action against the Appellants and others ought to proceed under the provisions of the Act of 2002. For, he had reason to believe that the Appellants herein as well as others were in possession of properties of crime. Further, they had directly or indirectly indulged in money laundering. They had invested the money received by them through the specified Demat account held with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai. Further, he was of the opinion that the stated properties were likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in such a manner so as to frustrate proceedings relating to confiscation under Chapter III of the Act of 2002. Accordingly, the said Authority in exercise of powers under the Act of 2002 issued separate provisional attachment orders against each of the appellants herein, as also other persons involved in the transaction. Provisional attachment orders served on the respective appellants read thus : 5 fa527-529.sxw IN APPEAL NO.527 OF 2010 “PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER-1/2007 (under sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) In exercise of authorization dtd.07.02.2007 issued by the Director of Enforcement under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) read with Notification No.GSR.441(E) dated 1st July, 2005, I, ATUL VERMA, Deputy Director, incharge of Mumbai Zonal Office make the following order: WHEREAS on the basis of material placed before me such as copy of complaint No.NDPS Spl.Case No.192/2006 dtd.08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau, statement of bank accounts, report forwarded by the Narcotics Control Bureau and statements of Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia in case of ECIR/04/MZO/07 dtd. 24.01.07 and on its examination, I have reason to believe- (a) the Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg. No.11-B, Flat No.501, 502, Kalpak Estate, Antophill, Mumbai -400 037 is in possession of proceeds of crime; that part of the said money has been parked with Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia, that the said Radhamohan Lakhotia had invested the money so received in shares through the Demat Account No.1601480000009377 held with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai which is more particularly detailed below; (b) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has been charged of having committed the schedule offence under section 23 & 27 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in Complaint No.NDPS Spl. Case No.192/2006 dtd. 08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau; and (c) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has invested the proceeds of crime through Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia for the purpose of laundering to project the said proceeds as untainted property; that the properties detailed below are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in such a manner that, I have reason to believe that if no Provisional Attachment Order is passed in this case at this crucial stage, it may result in frustrating proceedings relating to confiscation under Chapter III of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(15 of 2003) NOW THEREFORE, I, order that the properties mentioned in 6 fa527-529.sxw the Annexure to this order are provisionally attached for a period of 90(ninety days) and further order that you shall not remove, part with or otherwise del with such properties without my previous permission. Details of Properties Movable properties Immovable Properties 1. Shares held by Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia in the Demat Account No. 1601480000009377 held with Infrastructure Leasing enclosed annexure. Nil SEALED AND SIGNED ON THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2007 Sd/- 09.03.2007 (ATUL VERMA) DEPUTY DIRECTOR MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2nd floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. SEAL To (1) Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg.No.11-B, Flat No.501,502, Kalpak Estate, Antop hill, Mumbai – 400 037. (2) Shri Radhamohan J. Lakhotia, A:4/502, Alak CHS Ltd., Sector-19 A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai -400 706. (3) M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd.(DP:14800) IL & FS House, Plot No.14, Raheja Vihar, Chandivali, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 072. Copy to:- (1) Shri R.M.Sharma, Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority, Room No.408, A-Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001. (2) The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Head Quarters, NEW Delhi. (3) The Additional Director (PMLA), Directorate of 7 fa527-529.sxw Enforcement, Mumbai. ANNEXURE TO ATTACHMENT ORDER Sr. No. Name of the company Date of acquisition No. of shares Purchase value 1. Peerless Shipping 05.06.06 2000 304660 2. Glenmark Jan-Feb’07 2275 1342250 Total 1646910 Note: The purchase value of Rs.1646910/- is inclusive of the profit derived out of disposal of shares purchased earlier and disposed.” IN APPEAL NO.528 OF 2010 “PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER-2/2007 (under sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) In exercise of authorization dtd.07.02.2007 issued by the Director of Enforcement under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) read with Notification No.GSR.441(E) dated 1st July, 2005, I, ATUL VERMA, Deputy Director, incharge of Mumbai Zonal Office make the following order: WHEREAS on the basis of material placed before me such as copy of complaint No.NDPS Spl.Case No.192/2006 dtd.08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau, statement of bank accounts, report forwarded by the Narcotics Control Bureau and statements of Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia in case of ECIR/04/MZO/07 dtd. 24.01.07 and on its examination, I have reason to believe- (a) the Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg. No.11-B, Flat No.501, 502, Kalpak Estate, Antophill, Mumbai -400 037 is in possession of proceeds of crime; that part of the said money has been parked with Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia, that the said Radhamohan Lakhotia had invested the money so received in shares through Shri Radhamohan J. Lakhotia(HUF) in the Demat Account No.16014800000048216 held with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai which is more particularly detailed below; 8 fa527-529.sxw (b) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has been charged of having committed the schedule offence under section 23 & 27 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in Complaint No.NDPS Spl. Case No.192/2006 dtd. 08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau; and (c) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has invested the proceeds of crime through Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia for the purpose of laundering to project the said proceeds as untainted property; that the properties detailed below are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in such a manner that, I have reason to believe that if no Provisional Attachment Order is passed in this case at this crucial stage, it may result in frustrating proceedings relating to confiscation under Chapter III of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(15 of 2003) NOW THEREFORE, I, order that the properties mentioned in the Annexure to this order are provisionally attached for a period of 90(ninety days) and further order that you shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with such properties without my previous permission. Details of Properties Movable properties Immovable Properties 1. Shares held by Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia in the Demat Account No. 16014800000048216 held with Infrastructure Leasing enclosed annexure. Nil SEALED AND SIGNED ON THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2007 Sd/- 09.03.2007 (ATUL VERMA) DEPUTY DIRECTOR MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2nd floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Seal To (1) Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg.No.11-B, Flat No.501,502, Kalpak Estate, Antop Hill, Mumbai – 400 037. (2) Shri Radhamohan J. Lakhotia, 9 fa527-529.sxw A:4/502, Alak CHS Ltd., Sector-19 A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai -400 706. (3) M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial(in respect of shares at Services Ltd.(DP:14800) St.No.1-7 of Annexure) IL & FS House, Plot No.14, Raheja Vihar, Chandivali, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 072. (4) Franklyn Templrton Mutual Fund(in respect of 30000 units of 1st floor, Sakhar Bhavan, -Franklyn India Smaller Cos. Fund) 230, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Copy to:- (1) Shri R.M.Sharma, Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority, Room No.408, A-Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001. (2) The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Head Quarters, NEW Delhi. (3) The Additional Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai.” ANNEXURE TO ATTACHMENT ORDER Sr. No. Name of the company Date of acquisition No. of shares Purchase value 1. Firstsource Solutions 30.01.07 136 8704 2. Glenmark 22.12.06 100 62452 3. Honeywell 23.02.07 26.02.07 75 210 285 127340 356132 483472 4. Idea Cellular 12.02.07 344 25456 5. Larsen & Toubro 26.06.06 28.06.06 18.07.06 BONUS 50 25 50 125 250 105116 51522 10330 0 166968 10 fa527-529.sxw 6. Power Finance Corp. 01.02.07 136 11560 7. Tata Consultancy 26.06.06 BONUS 21.10.06 50 50 10 110 82788 0 10993 93781 8. Mutual Fund Franklin India Smaller Cos. 2199901736686 13.01.06 30000 300000 1152393 AND “PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER-3/2007 (under sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) In exercise of authorization dtd.07.02.2007 issued by the Director of Enforcement under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) read with Notification No.GSR.441(E) dated 1st July, 2005, I, ATUL VERMA, Deputy Director, incharge of Mumbai Zonal Office make the following order: WHEREAS on the basis of material placed before me such as copy of complaint No.NDPS Spl.Case No.192/2006 dtd.08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau, statement of bank accounts, report forwarded by the Narcotics Control Bureau and statements of Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia in case of ECIR/04/MZO/07 dtd. 24.01.07 and on its examination, I have reason to believe- (a) the Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg. No.11-B, Flat No.501, 502, Kalpak Estate, Antophill, Mumbai -400 037 is in possession of proceeds of crime; That part of the said money has been parked with Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia, That the said Radhamohan Lakhotia had invested Rs,11 Lakhs with M/s. E.V.Homes, 303, Vardhaman Chambers, A-Wing, Sector – 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 as advance towards purchase of Shop No.17, Millenium Park, No.22 & 23, Sector 25, Nerul, Navi Mumbai; (b) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has been charged of having committed the schedule offence under section 23 & 27 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in Complaint No.NDPS Spl. Case No.192/2006 dtd. 11 fa527-529.sxw 08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau; and (c) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has invested the proceeds of crime through Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia for the purpose of laundering to project the said proceeds as untainted property; That the properties detailed below are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in such a manner that, I have reason to believe that if no Provisional Attachment Order is passed in this case at this crucial stage, it may result in frustrating proceedings relating to confiscation under Chapter III of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(15 of 2003) NOW THEREFORE, I, order that the properties mentioned in the Annexure to this order are provisionally attached for a period of 90(ninety days) and further order that you shall not remove, part with or otherwise del with such properties without my previous permission. Details of Properties Movable properties Immovable Properties 1. Nil Shop No.17, Millenium Park, No. 22 & 23, Sector 25, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. ISSUED AT MUMBAI ON THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2007 Sd/- 09.03.2007 (ATUL VERMA) DEPUTY DIRECTOR MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2nd floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. SEAL To (1) Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg.No.11-B, Flat No.501,502, Kalpak Estate, Antop Hill, Mumbai – 400 037. (2) Shri Radhamohan J. Lakhotia, A:4/502, Alak CHS Ltd., Sector-19 A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai -400 706. 12 fa527-529.sxw (3) M/S EV Homes, 303, Vardhama Chambers, A-Wing, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703. With further directions to M/s. E.V.Homes that if the title of this property is not transferred to Shri Radhamohan J. Lakhotia, no further transfer to be allowed and the advance of Rs.11 lakhs along with interest or the appreciated rate should not be parted with. Copy to:- (1) Shri R.M.Sharma, Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority, Room No.408, A-Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001. (2) The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Head Quarters, NEW Delhi. (3) The Additional Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai.” IN APPEAL NO.529 OF 2010 “PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER-4/2007 (under sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) In exercise of authorization dtd.07.02.2007 issued by the Director of Enforcement under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) read with Notification No.GSR.441(E) dated 1st July, 2005, I, ATUL VERMA, Deputy Director, incharge of Mumbai Zonal Office make the following order: WHEREAS on the basis of material placed before me such as copy of complaint No.NDPS Spl.Case No.192/2006 dtd.08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau, statement of bank accounts, report forwarded by the Narcotics Control Bureau and statements of Smt. Asha Lakhotia in case of ECIR/04/MZO/07 dtd. 24.01.07 and on its examination, I have reason to believe- (a) the Shri Umesh Bangur, Bldg. No.11-B, Flat No.501, 502, Kalpak Estate, Antophill, Mumbai -400 037 is in possession of proceeds of crime; that part of the said money has been parked with Smt. Asha Lakhotia, that the said Smt. Asha Lakhotia had invested the money so received in 13 fa527-529.sxw shares held by the Demat Account No.1601480000009417 held with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai which is more particularly detailed below; (b) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has been charged of having committed the schedule offence under section 23 & 27 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in Complaint No.NDPS Spl. Case No.192/2006 dtd. 08.12.2006 filed by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau; and (c) that the said Shri Umesh Bangur has invested the proceeds of crime through Shri Radhamohan Lakhotia for the purpose of laundering to project the said proceeds as untainted property; that the properties detailed below are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in such a manner that, I have reason to believe that if no Provisional Attachment Order is passed in this case at this crucial stage, it may result in frustrating proceedings relating to confiscation under Chapter III of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(15 of 2003) NOW THEREFORE, I, order that the properties mentioned in the Annexure to this order are provisionally attached for a period of 90(ninety days) and further order that you shall not remove, part with or otherwise del with such properties without my previous permission. Details of Properties Movable properties Immovable Properties 1. Shares held by Smt. Asha Lakhotia in the Demat Account No.1601480000009417 held with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai as per enclosed annexure. Nil Smt. Asha Lakhotia. ISSUED AT MUMBAI ON THIS 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2007 Sd/- 09.03.2007 (ATUL VERMA) DEPUTY DIRECTOR MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2nd floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Seal To (1) Shri Umesh Bangur, 14 fa527-529.sxw Bldg.No.11-B, Flat No.501,502, Kalpak Estate, Antophill, Mumbai – 400 037. (2) Smt. Asha Lakhotia, A:4/502, Alak CHS Ltd., Sector-19 A, Nerul, Navi Mumbai -400 706. (3) M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd.(DP:14800) IL & FS House, Plot No.14, Raheja Vihar, Chandivali, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 072. Copy to:- (1) Shri R.M.Sharma, Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority, Room No.408, A-Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001. (2) The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Head Quarters, NEW Delhi. (3) The Additional Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai.” ANNEXURE TO ATTACHMENT ORDER Sr. No. Name of the company Date of acquisition No. of shares Purchase value 1. Peerless Shipping 24.05.06 3601 583145 2. Glenmark Nov’06-Feb’07 1620 931500 Total 1514645 4. As required by section 5(2) of the Act of 2002, the authorised Officer forwarded the copy of the Provisional Attachment orders alongwith the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority in the manner provided by the said provision. The 15 fa527-529.sxw Adjudicating Authority on receipt of the provisional attachment orders considered the question as to whether the provisional attachment orders were just and proper in exercise of power conferred under section 8(1) of the Act of 2002. The appellants and others, who were served with provisional attachment order filed their replies. The appellants had raised preliminary objection that the complaints were not maintainable and should be dismissed at the threshold. For, the sine qua non for proceeding against the person involved in money laundering is his connection with the proceeds of crime. If the same is absent as in the present case, the action is without authority of law. According to the appellants, the complaint as filed itself mentions that no proceeds of crime were generated by way of sale of 200 kgs. cocaine, which fact is reinforced from the communication of Superintendent of NCB, Mumbai dated 23rd January, 2007 addressed to the Assistant Director of Enforcement. The said communication clearly stated that the investigation carried out could not establish any link with the seized 200 kgs. cocaine and the funds transferred from Shri R.B.Modani to various individuals and companies in India. This was the principal argument canvassed before the Adjudicating Authority as can be discerned from the 16 fa527-529.sxw Judgment dated 1st June, 2007. The Adjudicating Authority examined the said argument and answered the same against the appellants. It found that the investigating machinery under the Act of 2002 and NDPS are distinct. Besides, the scope and object of the two enactments was entirely different. Therefore, the observations of the Superintendent of NCB, Mumbai would not bind the complainant under the Act of 2002. It then found that the proceeds of crime can be from the crime committed in earlier point of time and need not be limited to the actual offence regarding sale of 200 kgs. of cocaine, which is the subject matter of complaint under NDPS Act dated 8th December, 2006. It has placed reliance on section 23 to buttress this opinion. It has also adverted to section 2(u), which is very wide and would cover any person even if he is not accused of a scheduled offence or not directly involved in the commission of such scheduled offence. It opined that it is a notorious fact of which a judicial notice can be taken that in any illegal activity one gets paid after performing his role successfully. The cocaine was successfully loaded and smuggled out of Ecuador and reached India. The overseas persons have carried out their job successfully and must have received their payments. Such payments are not dependent on the 17 fa527-529.sxw final outcome of the operations i.e. whether cocaine has reached the indent final destination and has been sold or not. It has then analysed the factual position emerging from the record that M/s. OPM International Private Ltd. was regularly importing from Ecuador through the same route with the active involvement of the same persons and firms who are controlled by the close relatives and had close nexus with each other. It held that it was obvious that all payments in question were remitted from the account of R.P.Modani. Further, no reliable material was produced by the Appellants, who were obliged to do so, to persuade the authority to take the view much less prima facie view that money remitted from the account of Shri R.P.Modani was out of his legitimate earnings. On the other hand, the material on record would indicate that the amount in the account of Shri R.P.Modani was not legitimate. On this analysis the adjudicating authority opined that the money in question in the hands of the Appellants was proceeds of crime. It then adverted to three different stages before the provisional attachment property is finally confiscated under section 8(6) of the Act. Firstly, of issuance of provisional attachment by the Director or authorised officer of the Director in that behalf under section 5(1) of the Act. Secondly, 18 fa527-529.sxw confirmation of the provisional attachment by the Adjudicating Authority under section 8(3) of the Act. And lastly, final order of confiscation by the Adjudicating Authority under section 8(6) of the Act. The stage at which the present proceedings came up before the Adjudicating Authority was to confirm the provisional attachment order under Section 8(3) of the Act. It went on to observe that satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority at this stage is limited one so as to enquire as to whether the property in question is ascribable to money laundering or not. It held that at this stage, it was unnecessary to assess or weigh the full evidence as is required at the stage of final decision, which may be necessary for the final order of confiscation to be passed under section 8(6) of the Act, which outcome would depend on the fact as to whether the accused has been found guilty or not. Having said this, the Adjudicating Authority then proceeded to examine the broad factual matrix of the case on hand, so as to find out as to whether there was reliable evidence forthcoming to support the plea of the appellants that the properties in their hand was out of the legitimate sources of the remittances