https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773324 Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as maintainable even though the predicate fraud occurred before the schedule was amended on 1 June 2009, because the accused were still in possession and dealing with the proceeds of crime after the amendment took effect. The Court also held that no pecuniary jurisdiction objection arose for Part A offences, as the Act does not impose a monetary threshold for such cases and jurisdiction depends on the fraud and proceeds of crime, not merely the value of mortgaged property. The attachment and related proceedings were therefore left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:35:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773324 Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as maintainable even though the predicate fraud occurred before the schedule was amended on 1 June 2009, because the accused were still in possession and dealing with the proceeds of crime after the amendment took effect. The Court also held that no pecuniary jurisdiction objection arose for Part A offences, as the Act does not impose a monetary threshold for such cases and jurisdiction depends on the fraud and proceeds of crime, not merely the value of mortgaged property. The attachment and related proceedings were therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773324