PMLA attachment and freezing based solely on FIRs later closed as "mistake of fact" quashed for lack of jurisdiction

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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....