https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780338 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because part of the cause of action arose where the petitioners carried on business and where search and seizure occurred, so the ECIR's registration elsewhere did not oust jurisdiction. Continuation of PMLA proceedings was not barred by closure of one predicate FIR, as other FIRs and continuing material involving scheduled offences remained available. The Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act, 2019 was found to operate in addition to other laws, so it did not exclude IPC prosecution or PMLA action. Alleged non-repayment, interim protection, and an SFIO investigation did not establish grounds to quash the proceedings. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:16:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780338 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because part of the cause of action arose where the petitioners carried on business and where search and seizure occurred, so the ECIR's registration elsewhere did not oust jurisdiction. Continuation of PMLA proceedings was not barred by closure of one predicate FIR, as other FIRs and continuing material involving scheduled offences remained available. The Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act, 2019 was found to operate in addition to other laws, so it did not exclude IPC prosecution or PMLA action. Alleged non-repayment, interim protection, and an SFIO investigation did not establish grounds to quash the proceedings. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780338