Reasoned finding and speaking order are essential before confirming attachment under money laundering law; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

An attachment order under the prevention of money laundering regime cannot be sustained where the Adjudicating Authority fails to record a reasoned finding on the principal factual dispute and does not pass a speaking order on the material issues raised. The record showed a specific plea that the attached funds were legitimate monies of M/s Indu Builders and not proceeds of crime, yet the impugned order did not properly address the supporting material or the objection to the show-cause notice. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on all issues.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order confirming provisional attachment could stand when the Adjudicating Authority had not given reasons or adjudicated the appellant's core factual plea on the source of the attached amount, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had raised a substantive contention that the attached amount of Rs. 70 lakh came from legitimate funds in the account of M/s Indu Builders and not from alleged proceeds of crime. The impugned order did not disclose a clear discussion of the supporting material or a reasoned finding on this central dispute. In a matter involving attachment under the prevention of money laundering regime, the authority was required to deal with the material issues and pass a speaking order, especially where the factual source of the funds was directly in controversy. The absence of such findings meant that the dispute had not been properly adjudicated.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication by a speaking order on all issues, including the appellant's objection to the show-cause notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent of remand, and the controversy was left for reconsideration on merits by the Adjudicating Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An attachment order under the prevention of money laundering law cannot be sustained where the adjudicating authority fails to give a reasoned finding on the principal factual dispute and does not pass a speaking order on the material issues raised.

---