https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772573 Confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be sustained against a person affected by the order unless the statutory opportunity of hearing under Section 8 is first afforded. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though not a noticee before the Adjudicating Authority, could challenge the attachment because its bank accounts were directly affected and the factual questions about control and liability could not be decided without hearing it. The order was therefore vitiated insofar as it concerned the appellant, the attachment was set aside qua the appellant, and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings from the stage of notice under Section 8(1) after hearing the appellant. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:36:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772573 Confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be sustained against a person affected by the order unless the statutory opportunity of hearing under Section 8 is first afforded. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though not a noticee before the Adjudicating Authority, could challenge the attachment because its bank accounts were directly affected and the factual questions about control and liability could not be decided without hearing it. The order was therefore vitiated insofar as it concerned the appellant, the attachment was set aside qua the appellant, and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings from the stage of notice under Section 8(1) after hearing the appellant. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772573