https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419073 A company whose name was misused to open a bank account through fabricated authorisation documents could not be treated as the offender under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act when the complaint itself attributed the diversion, parking and concealment of funds to a third party. The Court noted that the petitioner consistently maintained that the account was unauthorised and that the money did not belong to it; on those admitted facts, it was not the person who generated, possessed, projected or attempted to project the alleged proceeds of crime as untainted. The criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process, while the attachment of the alleged proceeds of crime was left unaffected. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2022 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419073 A company whose name was misused to open a bank account through fabricated authorisation documents could not be treated as the offender under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act when the complaint itself attributed the diversion, parking and concealment of funds to a third party. The Court noted that the petitioner consistently maintained that the account was unauthorised and that the money did not belong to it; on those admitted facts, it was not the person who generated, possessed, projected or attempted to project the alleged proceeds of crime as untainted. The criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process, while the attachment of the alleged proceeds of crime was left unaffected. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419073