https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353799 The Delhi HC upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), rejecting challenges under Article 14. The Court clarified that "reasons to believe" under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) must satisfy statutory safeguards and be communicated to noticees at every stage. Noticees are entitled to access materials forming the basis of "reasons to believe," subject to appropriate redaction with recorded reasons. Violation of these requirements renders provisional attachment orders illegal. The Court also held that single-member benches of Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal under PMLA are permissible, with Administrative Members eligible alongside Judicial Members. Individual challenges to specific orders were remanded to a Single Judge for determination, with respondents permitted to raise all defenses including maintainability. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353799 The Delhi HC upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), rejecting challenges under Article 14. The Court clarified that "reasons to believe" under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) must satisfy statutory safeguards and be communicated to noticees at every stage. Noticees are entitled to access materials forming the basis of "reasons to believe," subject to appropriate redaction with recorded reasons. Violation of these requirements renders provisional attachment orders illegal. The Court also held that single-member benches of Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal under PMLA are permissible, with Administrative Members eligible alongside Judicial Members. Individual challenges to specific orders were remanded to a Single Judge for determination, with respondents permitted to raise all defenses including maintainability. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353799