https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783930 PMLA proceedings could not continue where the predicate Kolkata FIRs had ended in closure reports accepted by the Magistrate, because the foundation of the alleged proceeds of crime had disappeared. The Court also held that the Kolkata ECIR could not be preserved by later reliance on a Kochi charge sheet when that material was already the subject of a separate PMLA proceeding at Kochi, and using it in Kolkata would amount to impermissible second cognizance on the same predicate material. Section 66(2) of the PMLA was held to be only an information-sharing provision and not a source of substantive jurisdiction to revive or sustain proceedings after the predicate offences had been negated. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783930 PMLA proceedings could not continue where the predicate Kolkata FIRs had ended in closure reports accepted by the Magistrate, because the foundation of the alleged proceeds of crime had disappeared. The Court also held that the Kolkata ECIR could not be preserved by later reliance on a Kochi charge sheet when that material was already the subject of a separate PMLA proceeding at Kochi, and using it in Kolkata would amount to impermissible second cognizance on the same predicate material. Section 66(2) of the PMLA was held to be only an information-sharing provision and not a source of substantive jurisdiction to revive or sustain proceedings after the predicate offences had been negated. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783930