https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437173 The appeal challenged the legality of property attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after the closure of the predicate offence. The court held that the acquittal resulting from the compounding of the criminal case justified releasing the attached properties. It clarified that Rule 3-A does not apply when the predicate offence is compounded. Relying on precedent, the court concluded that as the predicate offence was resolved, the continued attachment was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, overturning the Single Judge's decision and ordering the release of the properties from attachment. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437173 The appeal challenged the legality of property attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after the closure of the predicate offence. The court held that the acquittal resulting from the compounding of the criminal case justified releasing the attached properties. It clarified that Rule 3-A does not apply when the predicate offence is compounded. Relying on precedent, the court concluded that as the predicate offence was resolved, the continued attachment was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, overturning the Single Judge's decision and ordering the release of the properties from attachment. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 19 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437173