https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772574 The Appellate Tribunal set aside ED's attachment order under Section 5 of PMLA in a hawala racket case involving online cricket betting. The court held that ED failed to follow mandatory procedures for retention of seized property under Sections 17(4) and 20, including obtaining AA's permission to retain property beyond 180 days. Since the property was already in ED's custody, conditions for attachment under Section 5 were not met - specifically, the requirement that property be in possession of a "person" and risk of concealment/transfer. The attachment was deemed illegal and unsustainable. Appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:36:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772574 The Appellate Tribunal set aside ED's attachment order under Section 5 of PMLA in a hawala racket case involving online cricket betting. The court held that ED failed to follow mandatory procedures for retention of seized property under Sections 17(4) and 20, including obtaining AA's permission to retain property beyond 180 days. Since the property was already in ED's custody, conditions for attachment under Section 5 were not met - specifically, the requirement that property be in possession of a "person" and risk of concealment/transfer. The attachment was deemed illegal and unsustainable. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772574