https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429522 Sections 48 and 49 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 treat the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate as an authorised authority, so no separate authorisation was needed for filing the complaint before the Special Court. The Court also treated money-laundering as tied to the date of the alleged laundering activity, not the date of the predicate offence, and held that proceedings remained maintainable because the alleged laundering and ED action occurred after the relevant offence had been scheduled. Personal appearance of one accused was dispensed with for routine hearings, subject to appearance for framing of charges, Section 313 examination, judgment, and when identification evidence is required. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Oct 2022 08:13:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429522 Sections 48 and 49 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 treat the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate as an authorised authority, so no separate authorisation was needed for filing the complaint before the Special Court. The Court also treated money-laundering as tied to the date of the alleged laundering activity, not the date of the predicate offence, and held that proceedings remained maintainable because the alleged laundering and ED action occurred after the relevant offence had been scheduled. Personal appearance of one accused was dispensed with for routine hearings, subject to appearance for framing of charges, Section 313 examination, judgment, and when identification evidence is required. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429522