https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377691 Coercive action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires a written reason to believe based on relevant material, and that basis must be communicated so the affected person can respond; mere suspicion or mechanical reproduction is insufficient. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with this mandatory safeguard vitiated the search and seizure proceedings. It further held that retention of seized records was unsustainable because the statutory procedure under Sections 17, 20 and 21 was not followed, the objections were not properly dealt with, and no live link to proceeds of crime was shown. The retention order was set aside and the seized documents were directed to be returned. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377691 Coercive action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires a written reason to believe based on relevant material, and that basis must be communicated so the affected person can respond; mere suspicion or mechanical reproduction is insufficient. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with this mandatory safeguard vitiated the search and seizure proceedings. It further held that retention of seized records was unsustainable because the statutory procedure under Sections 17, 20 and 21 was not followed, the objections were not properly dealt with, and no live link to proceeds of crime was shown. The retention order was set aside and the seized documents were directed to be returned. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377691