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.
AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA, holding that appellants A1-A3 were prima facie involved in the scheduled (predicate) offence and consequent money laundering. Investigations pursuant to FIRs and ECIR established that they extorted money using muscle power, procured land documents, manipulated revenue records, and sold properties, thereby generating "proceeds of crime" and projecting them as untainted. The quantification of proceeds of crime was based on these findings. AT noted that appellants failed to disclose any legitimate source of funds or produce evidence for the purchase of the attached properties. Distinguishing reliance on the SC order cited, AT found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.