https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798273 Continued retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires recorded reasons founded on material, cogent linkage between the assets and proceeds of crime, and the Adjudicating Authority's prima facie satisfaction that retention is necessary for adjudication. Suspicion and unaddressed allegations cannot support retention, and later explanations cannot cure defects in the retention order. Persons asserting ownership over seized jewellery must receive independent notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before their property rights are affected. An alternative appellate remedy does not preclude judicial review where mandatory safeguards, jurisdictional requirements, or natural justice are alleged to have been breached. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Sep 2026 08:24:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798273 Continued retention of seized property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires recorded reasons founded on material, cogent linkage between the assets and proceeds of crime, and the Adjudicating Authority's prima facie satisfaction that retention is necessary for adjudication. Suspicion and unaddressed allegations cannot support retention, and later explanations cannot cure defects in the retention order. Persons asserting ownership over seized jewellery must receive independent notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before their property rights are affected. An alternative appellate remedy does not preclude judicial review where mandatory safeguards, jurisdictional requirements, or natural justice are alleged to have been breached. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798273