https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194097 The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the Special Court's order taking cognizance and issuing summons under Section 3 of the PMLA against the petitioners. The court found the order illegal as it lacked prima facie evidence of money laundering against the petitioners. It clarified that the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA did not establish the petitioners' involvement. Statements under Section 50 did not inculpate the petitioners, and the revision petition was deemed maintainable despite being an interlocutory order. The judgment was stayed for four weeks. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194097 The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the Special Court's order taking cognizance and issuing summons under Section 3 of the PMLA against the petitioners. The court found the order illegal as it lacked prima facie evidence of money laundering against the petitioners. It clarified that the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA did not establish the petitioners' involvement. Statements under Section 50 did not inculpate the petitioners, and the revision petition was deemed maintainable despite being an interlocutory order. The judgment was stayed for four weeks. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194097