Strict limits on bank account freezing under PMLA: continuation requires valid statutory compliance and cannot be reopened by fresh application.

The text explains that freezing of bank accounts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act operates within the statutory scheme of Section 17, which allows freezing where seizure is not practicable, and Section 17(4), which requires a timely application for retention or continuation of freezing. It further notes that Section 20 limits retention of frozen property to 180 days unless the Adjudicating Authority permits extension. The Tribunal treated a fresh application as impermissible after the first Section 17(4) application had already been decided on merits, and said the Adjudicating Authority could not direct refiling once the matter was disposed of. The special statute was therefore to be applied strictly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in holding that the application for continuation of freezing of bank accounts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was beyond the scope of Sections 17(1-A) and 17(4), and in directing fresh application or further action.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an order concerning freezing of bank accounts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme of Section 17, which permits freezing where seizure is not practicable, and requires an application under Section 17(4) within thirty days for retention or continuation of freezing. It also considered Section 20, which limits retention or freezing to one hundred and eighty days unless retention is permitted by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the first application under Section 17(4) had been decided on merits and that the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to direct the respondent to file a fresh application after disposing of the matter. It further held that the special statute had to be applied strictly and that the frozen accounts could not be retained beyond the statutory period without valid extension.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction to the extent it treated the matter as beyond scope and directed a fresh application. The appeal was allowed and the respondent's application was rejected in toto.

---