https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765033 The Punjab and Haryana HC dismissed a petition challenging ED's search and seizure proceedings and bank account freezing under FEMA 1999. The court held that while Article 226 jurisdiction is plenary, interference during investigation stages should be rare and exceptional. The ED properly informed petitioners during search operations and had reasons to believe proceeds of crime were diverted to the frozen accounts. Since freezing orders were recent and the mandatory 30-day period for filing complaints before the Adjudicating Authority hadn't expired, the court found premature interference inappropriate. The statutory framework provides adequate safeguards through adjudication and appellate processes, allowing petitioners to present their case before appropriate authorities. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765033 The Punjab and Haryana HC dismissed a petition challenging ED's search and seizure proceedings and bank account freezing under FEMA 1999. The court held that while Article 226 jurisdiction is plenary, interference during investigation stages should be rare and exceptional. The ED properly informed petitioners during search operations and had reasons to believe proceeds of crime were diverted to the frozen accounts. Since freezing orders were recent and the mandatory 30-day period for filing complaints before the Adjudicating Authority hadn't expired, the court found premature interference inappropriate. The statutory framework provides adequate safeguards through adjudication and appellate processes, allowing petitioners to present their case before appropriate authorities. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765033