Disproportionate Assets Alone Sufficient for PMLA Action: SAFEMA Tribunal Dismisses Challenge to ₹1.01 Crore Attachment

Background and Context

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, delivered a significant ruling in P. Jose Kunjippalu Vs Deputy Director (Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-5008/COCHIN/2022), dated 18.08.2026, addressing a foundational question under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: whether possession of assets disproportionate to known lawful income — without any accompanying allegation of bribery — is independently sufficient to attract PMLA proceedings and sustain attachment of properties.

The Tribunal answered in the affirmative, dismissing the appeal and upholding the Provisional Attachment Order ("PAO") dated 30.03.2022, which had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 07.09.2022.

Procedural History

This appeal had an unusual procedural trajectory. The Tribunal had originally disposed of the matter on 17.03.2025. That order was subsequently challenged before the High Court of Bombay, which, by its order dated 10.06.2026, set aside the Tribunal's earlier decision and granted liberty to the appellant to seek modification or expungement of certain observations and to have the appeal heard afresh on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter in its entirety.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Shri P. Jose Kunjippalu, served as a public servant in the capacity of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Palakkad Range. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Cochin, registered FIR No. RC 16(A)/2014 on 26.11.2014, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act").

The CBI's investigation established the following financial profile during the relevant check period:

The disproportionate assets represented 93.78% above the appellant's known lawful sources of income.

One of the identified transactions involved the appellant's purchase of a property worth ₹60,00,000/- from Smt. Nazhat U Mulla on 11.02.2011, with stamp duty of ₹2,82,600/- and registration fee of ₹30,780/- paid separately. A housing loan of ₹39,10,000/- from the State Bank of India was availed for this purchase, of which ₹18,15,854/- had been repaid. These figures were factored into the disproportionate assets computation.

Based on the scheduled offence disclosed in the CBI FIR, the Enforcement Directorate ("ED") registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), conducted investigation, recorded statements under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("Act of 2002"), and issued the PAO on 30.03.2022, attaching properties to the extent of the alleged proceeds of crime amounting to ₹1,00,72,621/-.

Core Legal Issue

The central question before the Tribunal was:

Whether possession of assets disproportionate to known lawful income under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act can independently constitute a scheduled offence giving rise to proceeds of crime and supporting money-laundering proceedings under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 — even in the absence of a specific allegation of acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification.

Ancillary issues concerned the validity of the computation of disproportionate assets, the propriety of attaching properties alleged to belong independently to the appellant's wife, the relevance of CBI's alleged prior seizure of bank and demat accounts, and whether cash deposits were improperly included in the disproportionate assets calculation.

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant appeared in person and advanced the following contentions:

On the Scheduled Offence and Bribery Requirement