https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308813 Specific allegations that a company director was responsible for day-to-day affairs and that proceeds of crime were concealed and invested through the company supported the PMLA complaint, so the quashing challenge failed. The Court held that income-tax clearance did not negate the money-laundering allegations or show that proceeds of crime were absent, and authorities on absence of director liability were distinguishable because the present complaint attributed a direct role to the petitioner. It also held that a brief cognizance order was not invalid, as a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint or police/material report need not record detailed reasons at that stage. The proceedings were upheld. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 21:20:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308813 Specific allegations that a company director was responsible for day-to-day affairs and that proceeds of crime were concealed and invested through the company supported the PMLA complaint, so the quashing challenge failed. The Court held that income-tax clearance did not negate the money-laundering allegations or show that proceeds of crime were absent, and authorities on absence of director liability were distinguishable because the present complaint attributed a direct role to the petitioner. It also held that a brief cognizance order was not invalid, as a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint or police/material report need not record detailed reasons at that stage. The proceedings were upheld. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308813