Mandatory Section 20 safeguards govern retention of property under the money laundering law, and non-compliance makes detention unsustainable.

Retention of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires strict compliance with Section 20, including a fresh recorded reason to believe after seizure, forwarding of the retention order and supporting material to the Adjudicating Authority, observance of the 180-day limit, and satisfaction of prima facie involvement in money laundering. Section 20 is a mandatory safeguard and a precondition to the confirmation process under Section 8(3). Direct resort to adjudication without these steps bypasses the prescribed statutory procedure and renders continued retention legally unsustainable, while also affecting constitutional protection of property.

---

---

Issues: Whether retention of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act without a prior order under Section 20 and without compliance with the statutory safeguards could be sustained.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a fresh and independent recorded reason to believe for retention after seizure, forwarding of the retention order and material to the Adjudicating Authority, adherence to the 180-day period, and the Adjudicating Authority's satisfaction regarding prima facie involvement in money laundering. Section 20 operates as a mandatory safeguard and a necessary precondition to invocation of the confirmation mechanism under Section 8(3). Direct resort to adjudication without compliance with Section 20 bypasses the prescribed manner of action and renders the retention legally unsustainable. Continued deprivation of property in the absence of such compliance also infringes the constitutional protection of property.

Conclusion: Retention of the property without an order under Section 20 was invalid and could not be sustained.

---