<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (1) TMI 556 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402964</link>
    <description>The High Court entertained a challenge to an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, classifying the petitioner as a reporting entity and payment system operator. The petitioner contended they were a facilitator platform, not subject to the PML Act&#039;s provisions. The RBI supported this stance. The court acknowledged the jurisdictional issue and directed the formation of a committee to determine if facilitator platforms should be considered reporting entities and payment system operators. Pending clarification, compliance measures were imposed, and the impugned order was stayed. Further proceedings were scheduled for clarity on the petitioner&#039;s classification and relevant laws.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:59:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=633125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 556 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402964</link>
      <description>The High Court entertained a challenge to an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, classifying the petitioner as a reporting entity and payment system operator. The petitioner contended they were a facilitator platform, not subject to the PML Act&#039;s provisions. The RBI supported this stance. The court acknowledged the jurisdictional issue and directed the formation of a committee to determine if facilitator platforms should be considered reporting entities and payment system operators. Pending clarification, compliance measures were imposed, and the impugned order was stayed. Further proceedings were scheduled for clarity on the petitioner&#039;s classification and relevant laws.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>