https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373350 The Enforcement Directorate cannot bypass the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by using Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to freeze or interdict share sale transactions, because that mechanism is inconsistent with the Act's specific attachment, seizure and freezing safeguards. The article also explains that pre-enactment acquisition of shares does not automatically place them outside the Act's reach: a blanket immunity does not follow merely because the shares were bought before the Act came into force. However, on the stated facts, the particular shares were not shown to be proceeds of crime, as they had been purchased earlier through banking channels. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:33:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373350 The Enforcement Directorate cannot bypass the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by using Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to freeze or interdict share sale transactions, because that mechanism is inconsistent with the Act's specific attachment, seizure and freezing safeguards. The article also explains that pre-enactment acquisition of shares does not automatically place them outside the Act's reach: a blanket immunity does not follow merely because the shares were bought before the Act came into force. However, on the stated facts, the particular shares were not shown to be proceeds of crime, as they had been purchased earlier through banking channels. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373350