Substitution of attached PMLA properties requires prior recourse to Rule 5(5) procedure before the Authorized Officer.

A writ petition seeking substitution of properties provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with fixed deposit security was not entertained because the petitioner had not first invoked Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules before the Authorized Officer. The court noted that the attached properties had been provisionally attached under Section 5 and confirmed under Section 8 of the Act, but declined to grant direct substitution relief in the absence of prior recourse to the statutory procedure. The petitioner was relegated to the alternate remedy available under the Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek substitution of properties provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by offering fixed deposit security, and whether the petition was maintainable without first invoking the procedure under Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules before the Authorized Officer.

Analysis: The request for substitution related to properties attached under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and confirmed under Section 8 of the same Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had not made any prior application under Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 before the Authorized Officer. In these circumstances, the Court declined to grant the substantive relief sought and relegated the petitioner to the statutory procedure available under the Rules.

Conclusion: The petitioner was required to avail the alternate remedy under Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules before the Authorized Officer, and no direct substitution order was granted in the writ petition.

---