https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797648 Continued freezing or retention of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires specific evidence linking identified assets to proceeds of crime and a written, property-specific adjudicatory finding that the assets are involved in money laundering. Investigative necessity alone does not satisfy this requirement. Recorded reasons to believe for search and freezing need not be separately furnished where the statutory notice incorporates relevant reasons. A property holder's absence from the FIR, chargesheet or ECIR does not itself prevent action against assets connected with proceeds of crime. Filing a prosecution complaint does not remove appellate jurisdiction over continued freezing or retention. en-us Thu, 20 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Aug 2026 08:27:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797648 Continued freezing or retention of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires specific evidence linking identified assets to proceeds of crime and a written, property-specific adjudicatory finding that the assets are involved in money laundering. Investigative necessity alone does not satisfy this requirement. Recorded reasons to believe for search and freezing need not be separately furnished where the statutory notice incorporates relevant reasons. A property holder's absence from the FIR, chargesheet or ECIR does not itself prevent action against assets connected with proceeds of crime. Filing a prosecution complaint does not remove appellate jurisdiction over continued freezing or retention. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 20 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797648