https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763371 The HC upheld freezing orders under Section 17 and 17(1-A) of PMLA, 2002 against a company linked to an entity under investigation. The court distinguished the case from precedent where SC had stayed proceedings, noting ongoing investigation without judicial interference. The court held that Section 17(1-A) serves as intimation to affected parties while Section 17(2) mandates sealed submission of reasons to maintain investigation secrecy. Based on financial trail evidence linking the petitioner to the investigated entity, the court found the phrase "for purposes of investigation" in the notice sufficient to justify enforcement action. The writ application was dismissed. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:07:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763371 The HC upheld freezing orders under Section 17 and 17(1-A) of PMLA, 2002 against a company linked to an entity under investigation. The court distinguished the case from precedent where SC had stayed proceedings, noting ongoing investigation without judicial interference. The court held that Section 17(1-A) serves as intimation to affected parties while Section 17(2) mandates sealed submission of reasons to maintain investigation secrecy. Based on financial trail evidence linking the petitioner to the investigated entity, the court found the phrase "for purposes of investigation" in the notice sufficient to justify enforcement action. The writ application was dismissed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763371