Challenge to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act focused on whether the arresting officer had 'reasons to believe' and whether statutory safeguards were followed; court applied the limited judicial review standard requiring manifest arbitrariness or gross non compliance and found procedural safeguards complied with, tangible material (cash, jewellery, digital devices, recorded statements and communications) supported the officer's reasons to believe, and remand orders need not be quashed. On proceeds of crime and the independence of the money laundering offence, the court held that property derived from scheduled offences may constitute proceeds of crime and that possession or concealment can sustain independent money laundering proceedings, so PMLA liability did not require prior arraignment in predicate FIRs.
Challenge to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act focused on whether the arresting officer had 'reasons to believe' and whether statutory safeguards were followed; court applied the limited judicial review standard requiring manifest arbitrariness or gross non compliance and found procedural safeguards complied with, tangible material (cash, jewellery, digital devices, recorded statements and communications) supported the officer's reasons to believe, and remand orders need not be quashed. On proceeds of crime and the independence of the money laundering offence, the court held that property derived from scheduled offences may constitute proceeds of crime and that possession or concealment can sustain independent money laundering proceedings, so PMLA liability did not require prior arraignment in predicate FIRs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
