https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450351 The Punjab and Haryana HC noted that a stay or later remand of the predicate order under Section 156(3) CrPC did not automatically nullify the registered FIRs or bar an independent money-laundering inquiry. It treated the Enforcement Case Information Report as an internal step and held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act could continue where scheduled offences and possible proceeds of crime existed, even if the person concerned was not shown as an accused in the predicate FIR. It also held that non-bailable warrants issued during investigation were not illegal where the accused had not cooperated and the warrants were meant to secure appearance before the Court. The petitions were found to lack merit. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 03 Mar 2024 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450351 The Punjab and Haryana HC noted that a stay or later remand of the predicate order under Section 156(3) CrPC did not automatically nullify the registered FIRs or bar an independent money-laundering inquiry. It treated the Enforcement Case Information Report as an internal step and held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act could continue where scheduled offences and possible proceeds of crime existed, even if the person concerned was not shown as an accused in the predicate FIR. It also held that non-bailable warrants issued during investigation were not illegal where the accused had not cooperated and the warrants were meant to secure appearance before the Court. The petitions were found to lack merit. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450351