https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778327 The HC held that Section 44 of the PMLA governs territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court and, following the Apex Court's interpretation, the Special Court for the area where the offence occurred has jurisdiction over both the money-laundering offence and connected scheduled offences. The HC found the transfer order ignored PMLA provisions and denied the petitioner an opportunity, quashed and set aside the transfer by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, and directed re-transfer of the criminal case to the Special Court constituted under the PMLA. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 08:26:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778327 The HC held that Section 44 of the PMLA governs territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court and, following the Apex Court's interpretation, the Special Court for the area where the offence occurred has jurisdiction over both the money-laundering offence and connected scheduled offences. The HC found the transfer order ignored PMLA provisions and denied the petitioner an opportunity, quashed and set aside the transfer by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, and directed re-transfer of the criminal case to the Special Court constituted under the PMLA. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778327