PMLA interim release of frozen assets rejected where claimed educational and living expenses were unsupported by credible evidence.

Interim de-freezing of bank accounts and release of frozen movable assets under the PMLA was refused where the applicants could not substantiate a genuine need for educational or living expenses with credible documents. The court found the claimed tuition requirement could be met from unfrozen funds already available in other accounts, while one applicant produced only an offer letter, another relied on a GMAT-related email without supporting admission material, and the third filed no documentary proof. Living-expense claims were also unsubstantiated, particularly as two applicants were employed professionals. In light of the confirmed freezing and the risk of undermining the statutory scheme, the applications were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Applicants were entitled, at the interim stage, to directions for de-freezing of bank accounts and release of frozen movable assets for educational and living expenses pending the main appeals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The requested relief was examined only on the basis of the applications and supporting material, without entering into wider questions on the scope of proceeds of crime. The material placed for the claimed educational necessity was found to be inadequate: one Applicant produced offer letters but no specific basis for the alleged large requirement, another showed only a GMAT-related email without score, applications, or admission material, and the third produced no documentary support. The specific tuition requirement identified on record could be met from unfreezed funds already available in other bank accounts, and no persuasive material showed a genuine need to access additional frozen funds. The asserted need for living expenses was also found unsubstantiated, particularly where two Applicants were already employed professionals. Since the freezing had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, releasing substantial funds at this stage would risk undermining the statutory scheme and could not be justified on the basis of vague and unsupported assertions.

Conclusion: The Applicants were not entitled to the interim directions sought, and the applications were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim release of frozen properties under the PMLA cannot be granted on vague or unsubstantiated assertions of need where the claimed necessity is unsupported by credible documentation and the relief would risk defeating the statutory scheme.

---