https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95389 Proceedings under s.3 read with s.70 PMLA were challenged as without jurisdiction where the ECIR and all consequential attachment/freezing actions were founded solely on two predicate FIRs in which closure reports for "mistake of fact" had been accepted by the Magistrate. Since money-laundering is dependent on property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, acceptance of the final reports meant there was, at that stage, no subsisting scheduled offence and the ED could not hold a bona fide "reason to believe" the property was "proceeds of crime"; suspicion or vague information was insufficient. The 2019 Explanation to s.2(1)(u) was held clarificatory and did not expand "proceeds of crime" beyond a scheduled offence nexus. Petition allowed. - HC en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95389 Proceedings under s.3 read with s.70 PMLA were challenged as without jurisdiction where the ECIR and all consequential attachment/freezing actions were founded solely on two predicate FIRs in which closure reports for "mistake of fact" had been accepted by the Magistrate. Since money-laundering is dependent on property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, acceptance of the final reports meant there was, at that stage, no subsisting scheduled offence and the ED could not hold a bona fide "reason to believe" the property was "proceeds of crime"; suspicion or vague information was insufficient. The 2019 Explanation to s.2(1)(u) was held clarificatory and did not expand "proceeds of crime" beyond a scheduled offence nexus. Petition allowed. - HC Highlights Money Laundering Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95389