https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422728 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provided a complete remedial framework of provisional attachment, adjudication, and appellate review, especially because the challenge involved disputed factual questions. The Court also held that partial discharge in the connected criminal case did not extinguish the basis for money-laundering proceedings or the provisional attachment, since other allegations, including conspiracy and cheating, continued to survive and the existence of proceeds of crime remained in dispute. The writ petition was therefore rejected, leaving the statutory process undisturbed. en-us Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2022 21:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422728 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provided a complete remedial framework of provisional attachment, adjudication, and appellate review, especially because the challenge involved disputed factual questions. The Court also held that partial discharge in the connected criminal case did not extinguish the basis for money-laundering proceedings or the provisional attachment, since other allegations, including conspiracy and cheating, continued to survive and the existence of proceeds of crime remained in dispute. The writ petition was therefore rejected, leaving the statutory process undisturbed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422728