https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306326 Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not quashed on retrospectivity grounds because at least one alleged scheduled offence was already in the Schedule when the conduct occurred, and the court held Article 20(1) did not assist on the facts. The court also held that a pending appeal against attachment and a stay in connected CBI proceedings did not bar initiation or continuation of the PMLA complaint or the summoning order. The challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore failed, and the summoning order was upheld. en-us Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:04:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306326 Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not quashed on retrospectivity grounds because at least one alleged scheduled offence was already in the Schedule when the conduct occurred, and the court held Article 20(1) did not assist on the facts. The court also held that a pending appeal against attachment and a stay in connected CBI proceedings did not bar initiation or continuation of the PMLA complaint or the summoning order. The challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore failed, and the summoning order was upheld. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306326