https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449356 The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging provisional attachment order under PMLA Section 5. The petitioner, a housewife, contested attachment of property allegedly being proceeds of crime related to 17 fake bills of entry for foreign remittances through ICICI Bank. The court held that HC should not interfere under Article 226 unless there is patent lack of jurisdiction, which was absent here. The Adjudicating Authority has proper jurisdiction to determine if properties constitute proceeds of crime. The court noted that discharge of some accused individuals and death of another does not affect proceedings against the petitioner, as PMLA offences are distinct from IPC offences and companies remain accused for predicate offences. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449356 The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging provisional attachment order under PMLA Section 5. The petitioner, a housewife, contested attachment of property allegedly being proceeds of crime related to 17 fake bills of entry for foreign remittances through ICICI Bank. The court held that HC should not interfere under Article 226 unless there is patent lack of jurisdiction, which was absent here. The Adjudicating Authority has proper jurisdiction to determine if properties constitute proceeds of crime. The court noted that discharge of some accused individuals and death of another does not affect proceedings against the petitioner, as PMLA offences are distinct from IPC offences and companies remain accused for predicate offences. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449356