https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449569 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 6(2), 6(3)(a)(ii), and 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case involved HPZ token fraud where investors were promised cryptocurrency mining gains but couldn't withdraw funds. The HC held that the Adjudicating Authority's composition without judicial officers is valid as it performs administrative functions, not judicial ones. The court ruled that the Chairman's power to constitute single-member benches doesn't render provisions unconstitutional, emphasizing available appellate remedies. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Feb 2024 05:29:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449569 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 6(2), 6(3)(a)(ii), and 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case involved HPZ token fraud where investors were promised cryptocurrency mining gains but couldn't withdraw funds. The HC held that the Adjudicating Authority's composition without judicial officers is valid as it performs administrative functions, not judicial ones. The court ruled that the Chairman's power to constitute single-member benches doesn't render provisions unconstitutional, emphasizing available appellate remedies. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449569