https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408735 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act, stating that scheduled offenses justified their investigation. It found the cognizance order by the Special Court valid, emphasizing that a detailed inquiry was not necessary at that stage. Criminal liability was imposed on some partners due to their involvement in money laundering activities, while proceedings against another partner were quashed for lack of evidence. The court clarified that Section 70 of the PML Act differs from Section 141 of the NI Act and explained that a juristic person can be prosecuted independently of natural persons. The outcome resulted in the dismissal of the petition regarding PRP Granite Exports, Selvi, and Chandraleka, while allowing it for Sivaranjani. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408735 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act, stating that scheduled offenses justified their investigation. It found the cognizance order by the Special Court valid, emphasizing that a detailed inquiry was not necessary at that stage. Criminal liability was imposed on some partners due to their involvement in money laundering activities, while proceedings against another partner were quashed for lack of evidence. The court clarified that Section 70 of the PML Act differs from Section 141 of the NI Act and explained that a juristic person can be prosecuted independently of natural persons. The outcome resulted in the dismissal of the petition regarding PRP Granite Exports, Selvi, and Chandraleka, while allowing it for Sivaranjani. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408735