https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309160 The Madras HC held that the Enforcement Directorate may place its views in a quash petition concerning the predicate offence, but only to assist the Court and not to exercise supervisory control over another agency's investigation; the impleading petition was therefore maintainable. It also held that FIRs arising from a predominantly civil commercial dispute could be quashed on compromise where the materials did not justify further investigation, the alleged cheating of the public was not specifically made out, and related regulatory issues had already been addressed under the SEBI framework. The Court further noted that an impleading petition cannot replace the statutory intimation contemplated under PMLA section 66(2). en-us Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Aug 2023 21:18:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309160 The Madras HC held that the Enforcement Directorate may place its views in a quash petition concerning the predicate offence, but only to assist the Court and not to exercise supervisory control over another agency's investigation; the impleading petition was therefore maintainable. It also held that FIRs arising from a predominantly civil commercial dispute could be quashed on compromise where the materials did not justify further investigation, the alleged cheating of the public was not specifically made out, and related regulatory issues had already been addressed under the SEBI framework. The Court further noted that an impleading petition cannot replace the statutory intimation contemplated under PMLA section 66(2). Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309160