https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752672 The Calcutta HC dismissed a writ petition challenging money laundering investigation actions. The court held it had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) to hear the petition since part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, despite the original case being from another state. The investigation revealed illegal proceeds from online gaming operations were laundered through associates. The court found the search, seizure, and freezing orders valid, noting proper authorization hierarchy under Section 17(1) of PML Act where Director authorized Deputy Director who then authorized Assistant Director. The statutory provisions prevailed over any apparent rule inconsistencies, and show cause notices were properly issued. en-us Fri, 10 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2024 07:50:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752672 The Calcutta HC dismissed a writ petition challenging money laundering investigation actions. The court held it had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) to hear the petition since part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, despite the original case being from another state. The investigation revealed illegal proceeds from online gaming operations were laundered through associates. The court found the search, seizure, and freezing orders valid, noting proper authorization hierarchy under Section 17(1) of PML Act where Director authorized Deputy Director who then authorized Assistant Director. The statutory provisions prevailed over any apparent rule inconsistencies, and show cause notices were properly issued. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 10 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752672