AT held that the provisional attachment order (PAO) under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was validly issued. The Deputy Director possessed and recorded in writing adequate reasons to believe, grounded in seized cash, FIRs, fund transfers, witness statements and account transaction records demonstrating transfers from entities controlled by the appellants and a prima facie contravention of statutory norms. The Tribunal found the satisfaction to be a subjective yet material-based belief of a reasonable officer, not mere ipsi dixit, and that the statutory procedure did not mandate pre-decision communication of the recorded reasons to the appellants. Given the availability of a post-attachment hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, the application was disposed of.
AT held that the provisional attachment order (PAO) under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was validly issued. The Deputy Director possessed and recorded in writing adequate reasons to believe, grounded in seized cash, FIRs, fund transfers, witness statements and account transaction records demonstrating transfers from entities controlled by the appellants and a prima facie contravention of statutory norms. The Tribunal found the satisfaction to be a subjective yet material-based belief of a reasonable officer, not mere ipsi dixit, and that the statutory procedure did not mandate pre-decision communication of the recorded reasons to the appellants. Given the availability of a post-attachment hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, the application was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
