https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759858 An amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 was treated as operating from 19.04.2018 for computing the time limit to file a prosecution complaint under the money-laundering regime, so a complaint filed within 90 days from that date was not time-barred and the provisional attachment did not lapse on that ground. The appellants were also held to have locus standi to challenge confirmation of provisional attachment because the Adjudicating Authority had recorded adverse prima facie findings against them, making them persons aggrieved even though the attached properties were not in their names. The limitation objection failed, the maintainability objection was rejected, and the confirmation of attachment remained undisturbed. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2026 10:38:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759858 An amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 was treated as operating from 19.04.2018 for computing the time limit to file a prosecution complaint under the money-laundering regime, so a complaint filed within 90 days from that date was not time-barred and the provisional attachment did not lapse on that ground. The appellants were also held to have locus standi to challenge confirmation of provisional attachment because the Adjudicating Authority had recorded adverse prima facie findings against them, making them persons aggrieved even though the attached properties were not in their names. The limitation objection failed, the maintainability objection was rejected, and the confirmation of attachment remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759858