https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297515 The court upheld the provisional attachment of the property under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It emphasized that the Director's authority to act was justified based on a belief that the seized property constituted proceeds of crime likely to be dealt with, even though the property had been previously seized under Section 17. The court found that there was adequate compliance with the pre-conditions of Section 5, leading to the dismissal of the petition challenging the provisional attachment for lacking merit. en-us Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Sep 2021 08:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297515 The court upheld the provisional attachment of the property under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It emphasized that the Director's authority to act was justified based on a belief that the seized property constituted proceeds of crime likely to be dealt with, even though the property had been previously seized under Section 17. The court found that there was adequate compliance with the pre-conditions of Section 5, leading to the dismissal of the petition challenging the provisional attachment for lacking merit. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297515