https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402976 The court upheld the legality of the prosecution under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on the alleged lack of involvement in the predicate offence. The court affirmed the attachment order under section 5(1) of the Act, emphasizing the authority of the Deputy Director to issue such orders. Additionally, the court clarified that prosecution under the Act is distinct from other offences and does not require a conviction for the predicate offence, ultimately dismissing the petition for lacking merit. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:07:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402976 The court upheld the legality of the prosecution under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on the alleged lack of involvement in the predicate offence. The court affirmed the attachment order under section 5(1) of the Act, emphasizing the authority of the Deputy Director to issue such orders. Additionally, the court clarified that prosecution under the Act is distinct from other offences and does not require a conviction for the predicate offence, ultimately dismissing the petition for lacking merit. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402976