https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423541 The High Court held that the respondent did not have an absolute right to have their lawyer present during the recording of statements under Section 50 of PMLA, especially in the absence of an FIR or complaint against them. Emphasizing transparency through videography and audio recording, the court stayed the direction allowing the lawyer's presence at a visible but not audible distance. The court disposed of the application, listing the case for further proceedings and clarifying that the respondent's right to legal representation during interrogation is not automatic. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2022 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423541 The High Court held that the respondent did not have an absolute right to have their lawyer present during the recording of statements under Section 50 of PMLA, especially in the absence of an FIR or complaint against them. Emphasizing transparency through videography and audio recording, the court stayed the direction allowing the lawyer's presence at a visible but not audible distance. The court disposed of the application, listing the case for further proceedings and clarifying that the respondent's right to legal representation during interrogation is not automatic. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 03 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423541