TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Rules Pre-2013 PMLA Provisions Apply; Distinguishes Offences Under Section 2(y); Dismisses Complaint Involving Part B Offences.</h1> <h3>SAVITA SRIVASTAVA & ANR. Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT</h3> The SC clarified that the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, prior to the 2013 amendment, apply. It examined the definition of ... Money Laundering - scheduled offences in Part B of the Schedule - Section 44 of the PMLA - total value involved in the scheduled offences in the complaint subject matter of this appeal is less than Rs.30,00,000/- - HELD THAT:- The impugned judgment is set aside and the complaint bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.295 of 2021 pending before the Special Court, PMLA at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh is quashed. Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court, in a case regarding the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, clarified that the provisions of the Act before the 2013 amendment apply. The definition of a 'scheduled offence' under Section 2(y) was examined, distinguishing between Part A and Part B offences based on the total value involved. The Court noted that the complaint in question only related to Part B scheduled offences with a total value below Rs.30,00,000. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment and dismissed the complaint pending before the Special Court, PMLA at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, thereby allowing the appeal and disposing of any pending applications.
TaxTMI 
