Retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitation.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Case Laws New
Ref Provisions New
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the Adjudicating Authority to record reasons to believe, based on available material, that the property is required for adjudication and represents proceeds of crime. The text states that examination of unexplained investments and unsecured loans supported retention of records, jewellery, cash and electronic devices. It further explains that a Supreme Court stay of an order quashing an ECIR renders the quashing order ineffective while the stay operates, reviving the prior position for continuation of proceedings. For limitation, the period during which investigation was stayed by a court is excluded; on that basis, the prosecution complaint was within time.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.