https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451145 Section 202 CrPC was held unnecessary before cognizance where a complaint is filed by an authorised officer and the Special Court acts under Section 44 of the PMLA; the process was therefore not vitiated on that ground. Money-laundering liability under Section 3 was also stated to extend beyond the person arraigned in the predicate offence, so prior prosecution in the scheduled offence was not a precondition. However, on the material available, the petitioner was shown at most to have acted negligently in onboarding merchant IDs, with no prima facie evidence of knowledge or knowing assistance in dealing with proceeds of crime. The proceedings against the petitioner were therefore not sustainable. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:58:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451145 Section 202 CrPC was held unnecessary before cognizance where a complaint is filed by an authorised officer and the Special Court acts under Section 44 of the PMLA; the process was therefore not vitiated on that ground. Money-laundering liability under Section 3 was also stated to extend beyond the person arraigned in the predicate offence, so prior prosecution in the scheduled offence was not a precondition. However, on the material available, the petitioner was shown at most to have acted negligently in onboarding merchant IDs, with no prima facie evidence of knowledge or knowing assistance in dealing with proceeds of crime. The proceedings against the petitioner were therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451145