https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352571 Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not be sustained where the attached properties had been acquired before the alleged loan transactions and were already mortgaged, yet the authorities did not meaningfully consider the appellant's reply and supporting documents. The order was also vitiated because mortgagee banks, as secured creditors with a direct interest in the properties, were not served notice or given a hearing before confirmation of attachment. Sections 5(1), 8(1), and 8(2) required proper material, notice to interested persons, and consideration of their objections; failure to follow that procedure rendered the attachment unsustainable and required fresh adjudication. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:26:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352571 Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not be sustained where the attached properties had been acquired before the alleged loan transactions and were already mortgaged, yet the authorities did not meaningfully consider the appellant's reply and supporting documents. The order was also vitiated because mortgagee banks, as secured creditors with a direct interest in the properties, were not served notice or given a hearing before confirmation of attachment. Sections 5(1), 8(1), and 8(2) required proper material, notice to interested persons, and consideration of their objections; failure to follow that procedure rendered the attachment unsustainable and required fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352571