https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282336 The court allowed the writ petition challenging the Provisional Attachment Order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court set aside the order, directing banks to disburse the amounts to the petitioner. The court found that the company was a victim of fraud, the strategic investor had invested transparently, there were contradictions in the attachment order, and the retrospective application of an amendment was impermissible. The court concluded that the amounts could not be considered proceeds of crime and closed any pending petitions. en-us Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Aug 2019 06:25:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282336 The court allowed the writ petition challenging the Provisional Attachment Order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court set aside the order, directing banks to disburse the amounts to the petitioner. The court found that the company was a victim of fraud, the strategic investor had invested transparently, there were contradictions in the attachment order, and the retrospective application of an amendment was impermissible. The court concluded that the amounts could not be considered proceeds of crime and closed any pending petitions. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282336