Family-linked property purchases using fabricated loan agreements and benami-style arrangements held to be crime proceeds; attachment upheld, appeal d...
HC dismissed the writ petitions filed by A and others challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) PMLA. HC held that transfer of investigation to SFIO under Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act does not bar or interdict parallel proceedings under PMLA, as that provision is confined to offences "under this Act" and the two statutes address distinct offences and objectives. HC found that the D/AO possessed adequate, cogent material to form the requisite "reason to believe" for attachment, and that the belief was neither arbitrary nor speculative. Observing that PMLA is a self-contained code with a comprehensive appellate mechanism, HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all merits to be agitated before the Appellate Tribunal.
HC dismissed the writ petitions filed by A and others challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) PMLA. HC held that transfer of investigation to SFIO under Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act does not bar or interdict parallel proceedings under PMLA, as that provision is confined to offences "under this Act" and the two statutes address distinct offences and objectives. HC found that the D/AO possessed adequate, cogent material to form the requisite "reason to believe" for attachment, and that the belief was neither arbitrary nor speculative. Observing that PMLA is a self-contained code with a comprehensive appellate mechanism, HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all merits to be agitated before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
