Attachment is tested before the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court — a track distinct from the criminal trial. AMLEGALS represents affected parties across each stage.
A PMLA matter runs on two tracks. The criminal track prosecutes the Section 3 offence before the Special Court. The civil, property track tests attachment — first before the Adjudicating Authority on a Section 8 show-cause notice, then before the Appellate Tribunal on appeal, and then before the High Court under Section 42. Each forum has its own limitation periods, its own standard of scrutiny and its own remedies, and an affected party who engages only with the criminal case leaves the fate of the property undefended.
The two tracks share facts, so positions must be coordinated: an argument advanced to resist confirmation of attachment should not weaken the defence to the offence, and vice versa. AMLEGALS manages the property track in step with the criminal defence — responding to the show-cause notice, contesting confirmation, appealing to the Tribunal within time, seeking interim protection, and carrying substantial questions to the High Court — so that the client’s property and liberty are defended as one coherent strategy.
Responding to the Section 8 notice and contesting confirmation of attachment.
Representing the affected person before the Adjudicating Authority with evidence and argument.
Filing and arguing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal within the limitation period.
Seeking appropriate orders on the operation of the impugned order pending appeal.
Pursuing appeal to the High Court under Section 42 on questions of law and fact.
Coordinating the adjudication track with the criminal trial before the Special Court.
The Adjudicating Authority constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act decides, on a show-cause notice issued under Section 8, whether property provisionally attached is involved in money laundering and whether to confirm the attachment. It also deals with retention of seized property and records. It affords the affected person a hearing and an opportunity to produce evidence before deciding, and its order confirming or declining attachment is appealable.
A person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal must be filed within the prescribed period — generally forty-five days from receipt of the order — and the Tribunal has power to condone delay for sufficient cause. The Tribunal hears the matter afresh on law and fact and can confirm, modify or set aside the order under appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal has the trappings of an appellate forum and can pass appropriate orders in the appeals before it, including on the operation of the order under challenge pending disposal, subject to the statutory framework. The precise relief depends on the facts, the strength of the appeal and the balance of convenience, and is argued on the record.
Section 42 of the Act provides an appeal to the High Court against an order of the Appellate Tribunal on a question of law or fact, to be filed within sixty days, extendable for sufficient cause. The High Court is the appropriate forum for substantial questions arising from the Tribunal’s decision, and constitutional remedies remain available in appropriate cases.
Yes. The adjudication of attachment before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal is a distinct proceeding from the criminal prosecution of the money-laundering offence before the Special Court. The two run on separate tracks, though they share underlying facts, and the strategy must be coordinated so that positions taken in one forum do not undermine the other.
No. No engagement is treated as accepted until conflicts, scope and terms are confirmed in writing.
Share the order and the stage — adjudication, tribunal or High Court — for a confidential preliminary assessment.