https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788164 The court clarified that adjudication whether frozen assets constitute proceeds of crime lies with the Adjudicating Authority and that that Authority lacks power to grant interim partial defreeze orders under the Section 8 procedure; provisional attachment, freezing and seizure operate within the PMLA scheme and proceedable property must be derived from scheduled offences. It upheld the Single Judge's exercise of discretion in relegating the respondent to the statutory remedy while permitting an incidental limited salary payment, holding that the order was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order stands. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:20:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788164 The court clarified that adjudication whether frozen assets constitute proceeds of crime lies with the Adjudicating Authority and that that Authority lacks power to grant interim partial defreeze orders under the Section 8 procedure; provisional attachment, freezing and seizure operate within the PMLA scheme and proceedable property must be derived from scheduled offences. It upheld the Single Judge's exercise of discretion in relegating the respondent to the statutory remedy while permitting an incidental limited salary payment, holding that the order was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order stands. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788164