https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789881 Restoration of confiscated property under the second proviso to section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is contingent on the statutory conditions in the Restoration of Confiscated Property Rules being met. Rule 3A requires framing of charge under section 4 before a restoration application can be moved during trial, and a pending challenge to the adjudication order means the confirmation process has not reached the finality contemplated by the scheme. Because these requirements were unmet, the Special Court lacked authority to restore the property at that stage, and the restoration order was set aside. en-us Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2026 08:34:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789881 Restoration of confiscated property under the second proviso to section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is contingent on the statutory conditions in the Restoration of Confiscated Property Rules being met. Rule 3A requires framing of charge under section 4 before a restoration application can be moved during trial, and a pending challenge to the adjudication order means the confirmation process has not reached the finality contemplated by the scheme. Because these requirements were unmet, the Special Court lacked authority to restore the property at that stage, and the restoration order was set aside. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789881