https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772079 In money-laundering proceedings, the Tribunal treated the predicate offence as continuing where the underlying FIR had been supplemented and no competent court had quashed or discharged the scheduled offence, so the ECIR and seizure were not vitiated. The alleged non-supply of reasons to believe and relied-upon material under section 8(1) was not established on the record, so the procedural challenge failed. Statements recorded under section 50, together with other reliable material, were accepted to sustain the finding where the appellant did not prove a lawful source for the seized cash and gold and the temple-donation explanation was unsupported. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 08:40:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772079 In money-laundering proceedings, the Tribunal treated the predicate offence as continuing where the underlying FIR had been supplemented and no competent court had quashed or discharged the scheduled offence, so the ECIR and seizure were not vitiated. The alleged non-supply of reasons to believe and relied-upon material under section 8(1) was not established on the record, so the procedural challenge failed. Statements recorded under section 50, together with other reliable material, were accepted to sustain the finding where the appellant did not prove a lawful source for the seized cash and gold and the temple-donation explanation was unsupported. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772079