SAFEMA Tribunal sets aside property attachment order under PMLA Section 8(1) for failing to provide written reasons with notice

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside an attachment order of immovable properties under PMLA, 2002 due to procedural non-compliance. The Adjudicating Authority failed to provide written reasons to believe along with the notice under Section 8(1) to the appellant. The Tribunal distinguished between Section 5(1) attachments, where reasons need not be served, and Section 8(1) notices, which must include reasons to believe as confirmed by various HC decisions. The matter was remanded for de novo proceedings requiring proper notice with reasons to enable adequate reply opportunity.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming attachment of properties under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) due to non-compliance with Section 8(1) requirements.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order confirming attachment of properties under PMLA, citing non-compliance with Section 8(1) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority is mandated to have "reasons to believe" that a person has committed an offense under Section 3 or possesses proceeds of crime, and issue a notice to indicate the sources of income within thirty days.

2. The appellant argued that "reasons to believe" were not conveyed along with the notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority, contrary to legal requirements. The absence of providing the "reasons to believe" to the appellant while issuing the notice was deemed a ground for setting aside the impugned order.

3. The appellant's counsel contended that if the non-compliance with Section 8(1) is established, there is no need to raise further issues at this stage. The focus was on quashing the Adjudicating Authority's order based on this primary ground of non-compliance.

4. The respondent countered the appeal by asserting that while "reasons to believe" are essential, there is no explicit requirement to serve a copy of it along with the notice. The respondent suggested that if the Tribunal finds the Adjudicating Authority should provide "reasons to believe," the matter could be remanded for compliance.

5. The Tribunal noted that the "reasons to believe" were not conveyed to the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority, despite serving relevant documents. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of providing "reasons to believe" under Section 8(1) of the Act for fairness in proceedings.

6. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order due to non-compliance with Section 8(1) and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh proceedings. The appellant was to be provided with the "reasons to believe," and the proceedings were to be completed within 180 days as per statutory requirements.

7. The judgment referenced previous cases and legal provisions to emphasize the significance of complying with procedural requirements, particularly regarding the provision of "reasons to believe" under Section 8(1) of the PMLA. The decision aimed to ensure fairness and adherence to legal standards in attachment proceedings under the Act.

8. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and remanding the matter for further proceedings in compliance with Section 8(1) of the PMLA. The parties were directed to appear for proceedings on a specified date, and the statutory timeline for completing the proceedings was emphasized.

---