A Person Need Not Be Named as an Accused to Retain Seized Property Under Section 8(3) PMLA: SC

A Person Need Not Be Named as an Accused to Retain Seized Property Under Section 8(3) PMLA: SC

The order, passed on April 4, 2018, was governed by the pre-amendment Section 8(3) of the PMLA, which allowed property retention "during the pendency of proceedings" without a 90-day limit. The amended Section 8(3)(a), effective from April 19, 2018, introduced a 90-day retention limit during the investigation but permitted continuation if court proceedings were pending. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 8(3), retention is valid as long as PMLA proceedings (complaint) are ongoing, without requiring the person to be named as an accused. The Court overturned the Appellate Authority and High Court's orders, restoring the Adjudicating Authority’s April 4, 2018, order, affirming that retention continues until the complaint is resolved.

Find Lawyers In Your City

Connect with Best Lawyers at your location