<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Bank account freezing without lawful authority was arbitrary; anti-money laundering reporting rules did not justify de-freezing refusal.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100230</link>
    <description>A bank cannot freeze a customer&#039;s account on its own initiative merely because transactions appear inconsistent with declared income. The Court held that, absent a complaint, criminal proceeding, recovery action, competent authority order, or lawful lien, the bank had no legal foundation to assume an investigative role or deny operation of the current account. It further held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and RBI suspicious transaction reporting instructions do not authorise freezing the entire account; at most, the statute contemplates action by the competent authority under the statutory scheme. The freezing was therefore arbitrary, violated natural justice and the right to carry on business and livelihood, and the account was directed to be de-frozen forthwith.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Bank account freezing without lawful authority was arbitrary; anti-money laundering reporting rules did not justify de-freezing refusal.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100230</link>
      <description>A bank cannot freeze a customer&#039;s account on its own initiative merely because transactions appear inconsistent with declared income. The Court held that, absent a complaint, criminal proceeding, recovery action, competent authority order, or lawful lien, the bank had no legal foundation to assume an investigative role or deny operation of the current account. It further held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and RBI suspicious transaction reporting instructions do not authorise freezing the entire account; at most, the statute contemplates action by the competent authority under the statutory scheme. The freezing was therefore arbitrary, violated natural justice and the right to carry on business and livelihood, and the account was directed to be de-frozen forthwith.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>