Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1441 - AT - Money LaunderingRetention of property for the purpose of adjudication under section 8 of PMLA - number of days retention can be continued - Non satisfying the statutory requirement enshrined in provisions of section 20 of PMLA which mandates that the officer authorised by the Director is under an obligation to record the ‘reason to believe’ in writing as to why the seized property is to be retained for the purposes of adjudication under section 8 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the statutory obligations laid down in section 20 (1), 20(2), 20 (4) and 21(4) of PMLA are not at all complied with and a deliberate attempt has been made to retain the seized property & records without recording any ‘reason to believe’ qua the properties and records of the Appellant. In view of thereof, the appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority is liable to be quashed and set aside. Reading of Sections 17 to 21 that outer limit upto the date for deciding the application for retention of property within the meaning of sub-section 4 of Section 21 is 180 days from the date of seizure of any property or records. The said period is not extendable. The provisions of section 8 (3) (a) provides that the attachment or retention of property or record seized shall continue during the investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days. In the instant case, the search of the residential premises was conducted on 31.11.2017 and the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the OA on 22.05.2018. It is admitted position that no prosecution complaint has been filed against the Appellant herein. The properties and records of the Appellant were seized only for the purpose of investigation. The period of 90 days as prescribed under section 8 (3) (a) has already elapsed. Thus, we allow the appeal. We direct the respondent to return the properties retained by the respondent as the prescribed period of 90 days under section 8(3)(a) has already been expired. The seizure lapses after the said period if no prosecution complaint is filed.
|