https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791780 Supreme Court pandemic-related exclusion orders were applied to statutory time limits for concluding PMLA retention, freezing and provisional attachment proceedings, so the 180-day period was treated as extended by the Covid exclusion. The Tribunal also held that a stay in connected criminal proceedings did not bar separate PMLA action, and that FIR, ECIR and Section 50(2) statements supplied sufficient foundational facts despite reclassification of bank accounts. It further applied the reverse burden under Section 24, finding no cogent proof of lawful origin for the attached jewellery and properties. On statutory power, it held that Section 8(3) permits confirmation of attachment and retention of seized or frozen property after the prescribed process. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2026 08:40:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791780 Supreme Court pandemic-related exclusion orders were applied to statutory time limits for concluding PMLA retention, freezing and provisional attachment proceedings, so the 180-day period was treated as extended by the Covid exclusion. The Tribunal also held that a stay in connected criminal proceedings did not bar separate PMLA action, and that FIR, ECIR and Section 50(2) statements supplied sufficient foundational facts despite reclassification of bank accounts. It further applied the reverse burden under Section 24, finding no cogent proof of lawful origin for the attached jewellery and properties. On statutory power, it held that Section 8(3) permits confirmation of attachment and retention of seized or frozen property after the prescribed process. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791780