https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763829 Exclusion of the High Court stay period meant the 180-day limit under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remained unexpired, so adjudication and retention proceedings were within time. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence, allowing action against a person found in possession of proceeds of crime even if not named in the FIR or charge-sheet. On the facts, the seized cash, gold, jewellery and other assets were accepted as proceeds of crime or value thereof, supported by unexplained capital, unsecured loans and family-linked investments traceable to tainted funds. Compliance with the reasons to believe and forwarding requirements under Sections 17 and 20 and the relevant Rules was also found, so the retention challenge failed. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763829 Exclusion of the High Court stay period meant the 180-day limit under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remained unexpired, so adjudication and retention proceedings were within time. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence, allowing action against a person found in possession of proceeds of crime even if not named in the FIR or charge-sheet. On the facts, the seized cash, gold, jewellery and other assets were accepted as proceeds of crime or value thereof, supported by unexplained capital, unsecured loans and family-linked investments traceable to tainted funds. Compliance with the reasons to believe and forwarding requirements under Sections 17 and 20 and the relevant Rules was also found, so the retention challenge failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 28 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763829