https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792468 Under the PMLA, retention of seized cash and vehicles was upheld because a prosecution complaint in the same ECIR was already pending, and the statute did not require a fresh or person-specific complaint for every affected claimant. Earlier provisional attachments did not bar later seizure where investigation remained open and additional assets were traced from the same alleged money trail. The objection that a separate Section 20 retention order was missing was rejected, and the Tribunal found sufficient prima facie material and reason to believe on the record. The claimants also failed to explain the lawful source of the seized property, so the burden-related challenge failed. en-us Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792468 Under the PMLA, retention of seized cash and vehicles was upheld because a prosecution complaint in the same ECIR was already pending, and the statute did not require a fresh or person-specific complaint for every affected claimant. Earlier provisional attachments did not bar later seizure where investigation remained open and additional assets were traced from the same alleged money trail. The objection that a separate Section 20 retention order was missing was rejected, and the Tribunal found sufficient prima facie material and reason to believe on the record. The claimants also failed to explain the lawful source of the seized property, so the burden-related challenge failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792468