<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 1642 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782174</link>
    <description>HC held that offences under the PMLA are standalone and independent of predicate offences. Investigation, complaint, and trial under PMLA do not depend on the progress or outcome of the predicate offence case, and the Enforcement Directorate is not restricted by the scope or period of the predicate offence investigation. Any limitation based on the predicate offence would defeat the purpose of PMLA, which is a self-contained code with its own procedures. An accused in a predicate offence need not be an accused under PMLA and vice versa. As the petitioner was only an accused in the PMLA case, the challenge was rejected and the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1642 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782174</link>
      <description>HC held that offences under the PMLA are standalone and independent of predicate offences. Investigation, complaint, and trial under PMLA do not depend on the progress or outcome of the predicate offence case, and the Enforcement Directorate is not restricted by the scope or period of the predicate offence investigation. Any limitation based on the predicate offence would defeat the purpose of PMLA, which is a self-contained code with its own procedures. An accused in a predicate offence need not be an accused under PMLA and vice versa. As the petitioner was only an accused in the PMLA case, the challenge was rejected and the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>