TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the retention of records, cash, gold, jewellery and other seized articles under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was valid, including whether the appellant could be proceeded against despite not being named in the scheduled offence, whether the limitation period under Section 5 had expired, and whether the seized assets were proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the period spent under the High Court stay had to be excluded while computing the 180-day period under Section 5, and therefore the adjudication and retention proceedings were within time. It further held that money laundering is an independent offence, and proceedings under the Act can be initiated against a person who is found in possession of proceeds of crime even if that person is not named in the FIR or charge-sheet. On the facts, the Tribunal accepted the Enforcement Directorate's case that the appellant company had been funded through unexplained capital and unsecured loans traceable to tainted money, including investments and loans from close family members of the alleged mastermind, and that the seized property represented either proceeds of crime or value thereof. The Tribunal also found that the reasons to believe and forwarding requirements under Sections 17 and 20 and the relevant Rules were complied with.
Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure and retention failed, and the retention order was upheld against the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
