https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468422 An amendment introducing a 90-day limit for filing a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act did not retrospectively affect a confirmation order passed before the amendment, because no express legislative intent showed that prior confirmations were to be undone and the pre-amendment regime continued to govern. The later filing of the prosecution complaint during pendency of the appeal also did not render the challenge infructuous, as the attached properties remained relevant for confiscation in the pending proceedings and release would defeat the object of preserving them. The challenge to confirmation of attachment therefore failed. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 May 2026 18:36:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468422 An amendment introducing a 90-day limit for filing a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act did not retrospectively affect a confirmation order passed before the amendment, because no express legislative intent showed that prior confirmations were to be undone and the pre-amendment regime continued to govern. The later filing of the prosecution complaint during pendency of the appeal also did not render the challenge infructuous, as the attached properties remained relevant for confiscation in the pending proceedings and release would defeat the object of preserving them. The challenge to confirmation of attachment therefore failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468422