https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414240 A challenge to summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was rejected because the materials did not show legal or factual mala fides, jurisdictional error, or abuse of power, and the court found no basis to stop an ongoing investigation or grant blanket no-coercive relief. The non-supply of the ECIR, the timing of the summons, and allegations of political vendetta were held insufficient on the pleaded facts. The court also noted that arrest under section 19 had not arisen and that the applicant could seek statutory pre-arrest relief if needed. A limited safeguard was allowed by permitting counsel to remain visible but beyond audible range during questioning. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Nov 2021 07:09:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414240 A challenge to summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was rejected because the materials did not show legal or factual mala fides, jurisdictional error, or abuse of power, and the court found no basis to stop an ongoing investigation or grant blanket no-coercive relief. The non-supply of the ECIR, the timing of the summons, and allegations of political vendetta were held insufficient on the pleaded facts. The court also noted that arrest under section 19 had not arisen and that the applicant could seek statutory pre-arrest relief if needed. A limited safeguard was allowed by permitting counsel to remain visible but beyond audible range during questioning. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414240