As per case facts, the appellant challenged an Appellate Tribunal order confirming provisional attachment of his residential house, arguing no evidence of money trail for proceeds of crime and that ... the property was bought before the alleged crime period. The alleged crime involved a question paper leak scam. The appellant claims the property was acquired between 2008-2011, while the crime occurred between 2018-2020. The respondents claim the property was registered during the crime period. The question arose whether property acquired prior to the commission of a scheduled offense, or its equivalent value, could be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, especially when there is a factual dispute about the acquisition date and the proceeds of crime are untraceable. Finally, the court found that properties without a direct nexus to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offense cannot be considered proceeds of crime. However, due to a disputed question of fact regarding the property's purchase date, which was allegedly registered during the crime period, the appellant was not granted relief until the earlier purchase is proven by evidence. The appeal was dismissed.