https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777578 AT held the provisional attachment order lapsed because the investigation was not completed within 365 days under Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA and no criminal proceedings were pending on the 365th day. An interim SC direction did not effectively restrain filing of the prosecution complaint, as the respondent nonetheless filed it during that period, so the interim order could not be invoked to exclude time. Consequently the impugned order expired with the 365-day period and the appeal was disposed of. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777578 AT held the provisional attachment order lapsed because the investigation was not completed within 365 days under Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA and no criminal proceedings were pending on the 365th day. An interim SC direction did not effectively restrain filing of the prosecution complaint, as the respondent nonetheless filed it during that period, so the interim order could not be invoked to exclude time. Consequently the impugned order expired with the 365-day period and the appeal was disposed of. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777578