https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100229 Retention of seized cash and vehicles during pending PMLA proceedings was upheld where a prosecution complaint was already pending in the same ECIR, and Section 8(3)(a) was held not to require a fresh complaint for each later seizure. The Tribunal also held that retention is not limited to property of named accused persons, so the challenge based on one appellant not being named failed. It accepted continued retention to trace a larger suspected quantum of proceeds of crime, rejected the objection that a separate Section 20 order was necessary, and found prima facie reasons to believe on the material and an insufficient explanation of the asset source. The appeals were dismissed. en-us Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:31 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100229 Retention of seized cash and vehicles during pending PMLA proceedings was upheld where a prosecution complaint was already pending in the same ECIR, and Section 8(3)(a) was held not to require a fresh complaint for each later seizure. The Tribunal also held that retention is not limited to property of named accused persons, so the challenge based on one appellant not being named failed. It accepted continued retention to trace a larger suspected quantum of proceeds of crime, rejected the objection that a separate Section 20 order was necessary, and found prima facie reasons to believe on the material and an insufficient explanation of the asset source. The appeals were dismissed. Highlights Money Laundering Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:31 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100229