https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377947 The court held that the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) cannot freeze Demat accounts under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and must adhere to the stringent requirements of section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for seizure actions. Assets acquired before the enactment of the PMLA can be considered 'proceeds of crime' under the PMLA. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the DoE's limitations under section 17 of the PMLA and the inclusion of pre-enactment assets as 'proceeds of crime'. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 06:00:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377947 The court held that the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) cannot freeze Demat accounts under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and must adhere to the stringent requirements of section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for seizure actions. Assets acquired before the enactment of the PMLA can be considered 'proceeds of crime' under the PMLA. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the DoE's limitations under section 17 of the PMLA and the inclusion of pre-enactment assets as 'proceeds of crime'. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377947