Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Case Laws
Home Case Index Money Laundering
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Money Laundering - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 168 Records

  • 2017 (10) TMI 567 - ATPMLA

    Siddhi Vinayak Logistic Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    Insolvency and Bankruptcy procedure - provisional attachment order - maintainability of petition - Held that - The provisional attachment order not be interfered with by this Tribunal as validity of the provisional attachment order is to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority, who has the competent jurisdiction to decide the issue. Accordingly the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal - We are of the view that the above submission ....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 146 - ATPMLA

    Sh. R.V.S. Minhas Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    Contravention of provisions of Section 8(3) & 8(4), 73 read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that - When the matter is taken up today for hearing, the stand of the respondent remains the same that the record is not traceable and counsel requested for an adjournment. The request is opposed by the counsel for the appellant in view of the directions passed by the High Court. He has suggested that without prejud....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 32 - ATPMLA

    Smt. Nasreen Taj, Shri Asadulla Khan Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore, The Manager, Syndicate Bank

    Provisional attachment - offence under PMLA Act - whether grant of loan itself by the Bank cannot be termed criminal activity in respect of a scheduled offence? - Held that - In the present cases, it is clear that in order to treat the loan proceeds obtained by the borrower from the Syndicate Bank as the proceeds of crime, as done by the ED and the Adjudicating Authority is not correct. The said money is not illicit or tainted money, nor is the B....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 1446 - ATPMLA

    State Bank of India Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow & Others

    Offence under PMLA Act - provisional attachment orders - legal owner of property - vehicle was hypothecated to the Appellant Bank and that the Appellant/SBI had prior charge over the subject matter/said vehicle and the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order - superiority of SARFAESI Act - overriding effect of the two Acts i.e. SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the PMLA Act, 2002 - Held that - Admittedly, neither the bank is th....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 1358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Anil Babulal Chokhara Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Anr.

    Application for bail - offence under PMLA act - Held that - Rigors of Section 21(4) of MCOC Act as under consideration which is pari materia with Section 45(1) of PML Act, and considering the facts of the present case and the observations made hereinabove grounds for grant of bail are made out. The reasonable satisfaction contemplated under Section 45(1) has to be construed on the basis of aforesaid principles. - The observations herein are restr....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Virendra Jain, Surendera Kumar Jain Versus Enforcement Directorate Delhi Zonal Office Zone II New Delhi

    Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - offence under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA - Held that - In the instant petitions the petitioners, i.e. (1) Virendra Jain and (2) Surendra Kumar Jain, are involved in illegal activities of money laundering by way of share subscription with the help of a skilled person Rajesh Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant and the petitioners succeeded in receiving proceeds of crime amounting to ₹ 1,11,96,000/-, which is a Sche....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 1006 - ATPMLA

    PNB Housing Finance Ltd. ICICI Bank Limited, State Bank of Patiala Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar

    Complaint u/s 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Provisional Attachment Order - overriding effect of SARFAESI Act, 2002 viz. a viz. the provisions of PMLA-2002 - Held that - Admittedly, neither the banks nor employees of these appellants are accused in any criminal proceedings nor any allegations against them that they are involved in the commission of alleged crime or generating proceeds of crime. The amounts of loan sanctioned are....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 952 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Mrs. Shivani Rajiv Saxena Versus Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

    Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - grant of bail - Held that - In the present case, sufficient material has been placed on record to show, of course, prima facie, that petitioner is not a house wife. She is a highly qualified lady having completed Masters in Finance in the year 2002 from international university. She was actively involved in the affairs of the various companies by virtue of her holding responsible positions, inasmuch as, ....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 852 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Yogesh Mittal Versus Enforcement Directorate

    Grant of bail - offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - petitioner, without approaching the Special Court under the PMLAct, 2002 for grant of bail, has preferred the present petition seeking bail in on the ground that his remand in judicial custody is illegal and without any jurisdiction of the learned Special Court to remand the petitioner any further after the presentation of the prosecution under Section 44 of the PMLA - H....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 434 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

    Narendra Mohan Singh, Son of Sri Kripa Shankar Singh Versus Director, Directorate of Enforcement

    Offence under sections 3 and 4 of the P.M.L.A. Act - anticipatory bail - unaccounted amount of more than a crore, which was given as a loan by the petitioner to his wife-Ankita Singh, who in turn, had given a loan of Rupees One Crore to her brother Surya Sonal Singh - Held that - The supplementary complaint has put much reliance on the fact that Income tax Return did not reflect the loan amount. However, the balance sheet, which has been appended....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Rajiv Jain & Sanjay Jain Versus State & Anr.

    Remanding the accused persons beyond period of fifteen days as mandated by Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.- offence under PMLA - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours - Held that - Admittedly, since both the petitioners were produced before the learned Special Judge under PMLA for first time on 22nd August, 2017, the total period of custody/remand could not have been allowed beyond 5th September, 2017 when they would....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 55 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Rashmi Cement Limited Versus Enforcement Directorate

    Prevention of Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - Held that - The impugned notice, in the present case, no doubt, has serious fiscal/penal consequences in case the explanation offered by the petitioner is not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. But entertaining a writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid notice would amount to exercising discretion in the matter of arrogating jurisdiction only by virtue of the location of....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 54 - ATPMLA

    HDFC Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Goa

    Prevention of Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment - accused of criminal proceedings - Held that - Admittedly, neither the banks nor employees of these appellants are accused in any criminal proceedings nor there is any allegations against them that they are involved in the commission of alleged crime or generating proceeds of crime . The amounts of loan sanctioned are public money and they are entitled to get back their money by selling the....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1193 - ATPMLA

    Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

    Attachment orders - properties in question under the PMLA - possibility of revising, reversing or setting aside the said confirmatory order of attachment passed by Respondent No.2. - Held that - In the facts of the present case Respondent No. 2 was duty bound to take cognizance of the proceedings pending before the Hon ble Bombay High Court which was disclosed and the orders passed therein before the impugned order dated 25th March 2015 was passe....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1140 - ATPMLA

    Lucian Louis Fonseca & Another Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    PMLA - provisional attachment - Held that - In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (f) of sub-section 2 of Section 35 of the Act, the Tribunal s order is reviewed to the extent it upheld the confirmation of the provisional attachment of the subject property to the extent of the appellant s undivided share, right, title and interest in the subject property. - Accordingly, the order dated 16th September, 2013 in Original confirming passed....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1139 - ATPMLA

    Gautam Khaitan Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

    Application under section 35 (2) (f) of the PMLA, 2002 for review of Judgment - Held that - Considering the facts that similar prayer is sought by his wife and son which is pending before High Court with the same prayer, we are of the view, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the writ-petitioner as the appellant also intends to continue the said proceedings. Even otherwise, we feel that in view of order passed in LPA to the effect th....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1076 - ATPMLA

    Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    Prevention of Money Laundering - determinative factors on the basis of which it can be said that whether any person or any property is involved in money laundering - Held that - The Adjudicating Authority did not mention any reason as to why while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2016, selective approach was adopted in considering and discussing the grounds submitted by the appellant in its written reply dated 11.01.2016 and on what basis t....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1075 - ATPMLA

    Mandwa Farms Pvt. Ltd Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    PMLA - provisional attachment order - property in the present case was attached for value of proceeds of crime involved in money laundering - whether applicant/appellant is a separate and distinct legal entity and its property could not be attached on account of alleged defaults by the KAL and Dr. Vijay Mallaya? - Held that - In case the provisions of section 8(4) and 8(5) of the PMLA are read together, it is evident that after the confirmation o....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1012 - ATPMLA

    Jharkhand Rai University, Rai Technology University, Malvika Foundation, Integrated Institute of Excellence Society, Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

    Eligibility of hearing officer as a judicial Member - offence under PMLA - Held that - hearing officer was not a judicial Member - Held that - The hearing was fixed on 08.06.2015, Monday, despite the 6th June being Saturday. The notice was issued by E-mail. At the request of the appellant, the matter was adjourned to 11th June, 2015. On 11th June, 2015 the application was filed for re-call of order dated 8th June, 2015 and also to file the reply ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 1011 - ATPMLA

    United Mohun Bagan Football Team (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

    Provisional attachment of property under PMLA - eligible connections - Held that - The appellant did not have any nexus with the accused Saradha Group of Companies, that they did not know about the criminality attached to the subject payments received in terms of the co-sponsorship agreement between the parties and that the appellant is a bona fide receiver of the payments in good faith and for valuable consideration provided. It is accordingly h....... + More


1........
 
 
 
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version