Reasoned adjudication of attachment objections required; non-speaking confirmation order set aside for fresh consideration of proceeds-of-crime nexus.

Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate material objections to a provisional attachment. A detailed order that merely reproduces pleadings, without reasoned findings on the absence of a money trail, the property's alleged nexus with proceeds of crime, and claimed non-involvement in the predicate conduct, is non-speaking. The confirmation order was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication addressing every objection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment order was sustainable when the Adjudicating Authority did not give reasoned findings on the appellant's material objections.

Analysis: Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires adjudication of the issues raised in opposition to attachment. Although the impugned order was detailed and reproduced the parties' pleadings, it did not address the material objections concerning the absence of a money trail, the alleged connection between the attached property and the proceeds of crime, and the claimed non-involvement of the appellant's deceased husband in the predicate conduct. The absence of reasons on these objections rendered the adjudication non-speaking.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after dealing with every issue raised by the appellant.

---