https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789460 Section 20 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act permits frozen property to remain under restraint beyond 180 days only if retention or continuation is authorised within the statutory framework. The record showed that the retention order was passed within time, so the freezing of the bank accounts did not lapse merely because 180 days had expired. The material also indicated the appellant's involvement in the alleged laundering activity, including his recorded statement, role in inspections and RMA proposals, and no satisfactory explanation for the source of the balances. On that basis, the accounts were treated as prima facie involved in money-laundering and liable to remain frozen. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789460 Section 20 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act permits frozen property to remain under restraint beyond 180 days only if retention or continuation is authorised within the statutory framework. The record showed that the retention order was passed within time, so the freezing of the bank accounts did not lapse merely because 180 days had expired. The material also indicated the appellant's involvement in the alleged laundering activity, including his recorded statement, role in inspections and RMA proposals, and no satisfactory explanation for the source of the balances. On that basis, the accounts were treated as prima facie involved in money-laundering and liable to remain frozen. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789460