https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764673 Section 44 of the PMLA was treated as the controlling provision for trials involving money-laundering and connected scheduled offences, and its explanation was read to mean that the Special Court's jurisdiction over the PMLA offence does not depend on orders in the predicate case. The court's treatment of the two matters being tried by the same court was not viewed as a joint trial. Money-laundering was reaffirmed as an independent and stand-alone offence, so pendency of the predicate offence did not bar continuation of the PMLA trial. On that basis, there was no legal ground to compel a simultaneous trial at the accused's instance. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:17:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764673 Section 44 of the PMLA was treated as the controlling provision for trials involving money-laundering and connected scheduled offences, and its explanation was read to mean that the Special Court's jurisdiction over the PMLA offence does not depend on orders in the predicate case. The court's treatment of the two matters being tried by the same court was not viewed as a joint trial. Money-laundering was reaffirmed as an independent and stand-alone offence, so pendency of the predicate offence did not bar continuation of the PMLA trial. On that basis, there was no legal ground to compel a simultaneous trial at the accused's instance. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764673