https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412938 A challenge to a cognizance order and consequential non-bailable warrants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was rejected because no prima facie ground was shown to suspend either order. The court noted that the complaint was said to lack disclosure of a scheduled offence or material linking the petitioners to money-laundering, but the opposing view emphasised the limited scope of revisional interference, the discretionary power to issue process under the Criminal Procedure Code, the seriousness of economic offences, and the cognizable, non-bailable character of the offence. The impugned order was treated as reasoned and based on the material before the court, and the stay applications failed. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:22:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412938 A challenge to a cognizance order and consequential non-bailable warrants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was rejected because no prima facie ground was shown to suspend either order. The court noted that the complaint was said to lack disclosure of a scheduled offence or material linking the petitioners to money-laundering, but the opposing view emphasised the limited scope of revisional interference, the discretionary power to issue process under the Criminal Procedure Code, the seriousness of economic offences, and the cognizable, non-bailable character of the offence. The impugned order was treated as reasoned and based on the material before the court, and the stay applications failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412938