https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765468 Madras HC dismissed petitioners' challenge to Enforcement Directorate summons under Section 50(2) of PMLA, 2002. Petitioners argued they had already responded to earlier summons, making subsequent summons improper. Court held that Section 44(1)(d) Explanation (ii) permits further investigation and evidence collection through subsequent complaints. Despite the alleged offence predating the amendment, summons issued post-amendment were valid. Court emphasized that judicial interference at summons stage prejudices effective investigation and courts must allow investigating agencies to function freely in money laundering cases. Petition dismissed; compliance with summons mandated. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Feb 2025 08:41:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765468 Madras HC dismissed petitioners' challenge to Enforcement Directorate summons under Section 50(2) of PMLA, 2002. Petitioners argued they had already responded to earlier summons, making subsequent summons improper. Court held that Section 44(1)(d) Explanation (ii) permits further investigation and evidence collection through subsequent complaints. Despite the alleged offence predating the amendment, summons issued post-amendment were valid. Court emphasized that judicial interference at summons stage prejudices effective investigation and courts must allow investigating agencies to function freely in money laundering cases. Petition dismissed; compliance with summons mandated. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765468