https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429523 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to issue the provisional attachment order under PMLA, 2002, based on reasonable belief and materials in possession. It ruled that the adjudicating authority has the power to examine the validity of the attachment order. The court did not quash the proceedings or defreeze the bank accounts, directing the petitioners to raise objections before the adjudicating authority. The court rejected the forum non conveniens argument and clarified that alternative remedies do not bar judicial review when challenging the authority's jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without commenting on the attachment order's validity. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Oct 2022 08:13:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429523 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to issue the provisional attachment order under PMLA, 2002, based on reasonable belief and materials in possession. It ruled that the adjudicating authority has the power to examine the validity of the attachment order. The court did not quash the proceedings or defreeze the bank accounts, directing the petitioners to raise objections before the adjudicating authority. The court rejected the forum non conveniens argument and clarified that alternative remedies do not bar judicial review when challenging the authority's jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without commenting on the attachment order's validity. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429523