https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377947 In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement cannot use Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to freeze or seize property instead of following Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 prescribes a specific mandatory procedure, including possession of information, recorded reasons to believe, and forwarding those reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority, while Sections 65 and 71 preserve the Act's overriding and special character. The general CrPC seizure power cannot dilute or replace that stricter statutory scheme, so the appeal failed on this issue. 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 In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement cannot use Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to freeze or seize property instead of following Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 prescribes a specific mandatory procedure, including possession of information, recorded reasons to believe, and forwarding those reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority, while Sections 65 and 71 preserve the Act's overriding and special character. The general CrPC seizure power cannot dilute or replace that stricter statutory scheme, so the appeal failed on this issue. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377947