https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762893 Calcutta HC dismissed a petition challenging freezing orders under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002. The Court held that the Enforcement Directorate had sufficient reasons to believe and justification for freezing petitioner's assets based on financial trails linking the company to another entity under investigation. The Court distinguished this case from precedents cited by petitioner, noting ongoing investigation without court interference. The phrase "for purposes of investigation" in Section 17(1-A) notices was deemed sufficient justification. Petitioner retained right to approach adjudicating authority. No interference warranted in investigating agency's actions. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2024 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762893 Calcutta HC dismissed a petition challenging freezing orders under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002. The Court held that the Enforcement Directorate had sufficient reasons to believe and justification for freezing petitioner's assets based on financial trails linking the company to another entity under investigation. The Court distinguished this case from precedents cited by petitioner, noting ongoing investigation without court interference. The phrase "for purposes of investigation" in Section 17(1-A) notices was deemed sufficient justification. Petitioner retained right to approach adjudicating authority. No interference warranted in investigating agency's actions. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762893