#Provisional Attachment

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹25 crore SAFEMA attachment, holding that the Enforcement Directorate failed to establish any nexus between the appellants' legitimate pre-existing business transactions and the alleged YES Bank-DHFL proceeds of crime. The ruling clarifies that lawful business dealings routed through banking channels cannot be presumed as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a direct link to the scheduled offence, protecting genuine commercial transactions from overbroad attachment.

Gauhati High Court rules that provisional attachment orders under PMLA Section 5 must explicitly disclose the 'reason to believe' to comply with natural justice. The court also clarifies that properties representing proceeds of crime can be attached even if acquired before the scheduled offence, reinforcing ED's attachment powers.

The Karnataka High Court quashed a provisional attachment order under the PMLA for failing to demonstrate a concrete risk of asset dissipation. The ruling underscores that statutory compliance in recording reasons is jurisdictional, not merely procedural, affecting enforcement agencies' powers under anti-money laundering laws.

Bombay High Court rules that provisional attachment under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act ceases to operate after one year by operation of law, regardless of pending proceedings. The judgment mandates immediate defreezing of bank accounts, providing relief to taxpayers facing prolonged attachment without adjudication.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that revenue authorities cannot encumber property based merely on administrative letters under the PMLA. A valid attachment order, specifically naming the property and issued after notice, is mandatory to comply with Article 300-A and principles of natural justice. The ruling protects property owners from arbitrary deprivation of assets during money laundering investigations.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that freezing bank accounts under Section 107 of BNSS without an FIR or Magistrate order violates due process. The court directed de-freezing of the petitioner’s account, allowing operation subject to retaining the disputed Rs. 23,400. The ruling reinforces safeguards against arbitrary account freezes during cyber crime investigations.

Rajasthan High Court holds that provisional attachment under PMLA cannot persist when the factual basis for it is withdrawn, reinforcing proportionality and due process.

Bombay High Court rules that GST authorities must provide opportunity of hearing before provisional attachment of property, relying on Radha Krishan Industries precedent.