https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406753 The court held that properties acquired before the commission of the crime could not be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as they did not qualify as "proceeds of crime." The attachment of properties acquired after the crime was deemed within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. The court set aside the provisional attachment order for properties acquired before the crime and allowed proceedings to continue for properties acquired after the crime. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs awarded. en-us Sat, 20 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:49:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406753 The court held that properties acquired before the commission of the crime could not be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as they did not qualify as "proceeds of crime." The attachment of properties acquired after the crime was deemed within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. The court set aside the provisional attachment order for properties acquired before the crime and allowed proceedings to continue for properties acquired after the crime. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Money Laundering Sat, 20 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406753