https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188491 Money-laundering liability was held to depend on the date of involvement in the laundering process and projection of proceeds as untainted, not on the date of the underlying scheduled offence alone; the prosecution was therefore treated as maintainable for the loan transactions described. A prior adjudication finding that the money was legitimate did not bar criminal proceedings, because it was not treated as conclusive against allegations based on suspicious disclosures, inconsistent records, and doubtful supporting documents. A supplementary complaint was also held permissible, as the term "a complaint" was read to include further material collected during investigation. The challenge to cognizance therefore failed and the PMLA proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:35:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188491 Money-laundering liability was held to depend on the date of involvement in the laundering process and projection of proceeds as untainted, not on the date of the underlying scheduled offence alone; the prosecution was therefore treated as maintainable for the loan transactions described. A prior adjudication finding that the money was legitimate did not bar criminal proceedings, because it was not treated as conclusive against allegations based on suspicious disclosures, inconsistent records, and doubtful supporting documents. A supplementary complaint was also held permissible, as the term "a complaint" was read to include further material collected during investigation. The challenge to cognizance therefore failed and the PMLA proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Money Laundering Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188491