Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The AT dismissed the appeal, upholding the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 31.03.2016 and confirming attachment of the impugned properties. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contention that the PMLA could not be applied retrospectively, noting the account was declared NPA and frozen on 31.03.2005, the PMLA came into force on 01.07.2005, and the relevant offences were included as Scheduled Offences prior to issuance of the PAO. The AT found sufficient material that the appellants participated in transactions to conceal proceeds and effect undervalued sales to evade attachment, thereby validating invocation of PMLA provisions and dismissing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.