https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410507 PMLA proceedings were held not liable to be quashed merely because the predicate prosecution was said to be weak, certain properties or fixed deposits predated the alleged offence, or the cognizance order was said to lack application of mind. The complaint was founded on FIRs and the charge sheet in the predicate offences, and the date of acquisition was immaterial by itself because liability depends on whether proceeds of crime were projected as untainted property. Such factual disputes were held unsuitable for quashing and left for trial. At the cognizance stage, the order was assessed under the Section 204 CrPC standard of sufficient ground to proceed, not on the merits of evidence. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Aug 2021 09:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410507 PMLA proceedings were held not liable to be quashed merely because the predicate prosecution was said to be weak, certain properties or fixed deposits predated the alleged offence, or the cognizance order was said to lack application of mind. The complaint was founded on FIRs and the charge sheet in the predicate offences, and the date of acquisition was immaterial by itself because liability depends on whether proceeds of crime were projected as untainted property. Such factual disputes were held unsuitable for quashing and left for trial. At the cognizance stage, the order was assessed under the Section 204 CrPC standard of sufficient ground to proceed, not on the merits of evidence. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410507