Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR
Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application context and applicant's detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. applicant claims pmla applicability issues. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. prosecution argues continuity in law post-bns. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. requirements for establishing predicate offences under pmla. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. re-enactment affects interpretation of legal references. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. legislation by reference vs. incorporation distinction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. implications of section 8 on legislative continuity. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. court's reasoning supporting dynamic interpretation of pmla. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. legislation by reference and its operational dynamics. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. continuity of ipc references within pmla post-amendments. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 11. legislative intent relevant for interpreting pmla. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 12. validity of ipc references not negated by absence of text amendment. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 13. avoiding absurd outcomes in legal interpretations. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 14. purpose-driven interpretation of anti-money laundering laws. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 15. role of executive notific |
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act's references to IPC provisions remain valid and dynamically interpretative, applying to corresponding sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita after repeal.
Practice and Procedure - Special court - Jurisdiction of - There is no ambiguity in language of Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA. The concerned court, which is trying the scheduled offence, is required to tr....
Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are independent and can be based on continuing laundering activities, regardless of the scheduled offence's date of commission.
(1) Bail – Twin conditions in Section 45(1) of 2002 Act, which was declared unconstitutional by judgment of Apex Court in Nikesh T. Shah Vs. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, stand revived in view of L....
Money-laundering is a continuing offence, so long as tainted property is enjoyed, possessed, orprojected as untainted.
The provision requiring an accused to be heard before cognisance is a mandatory, substantive right. Cognisance orders passed without such a hearing are void ab initio, and ministerial registration of....
Offences punishable under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 having imprisonment of two years or more will have to be tried by a Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions....
The court affirmed that under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, the Special Court is designated to try both scheduled offences and money laundering offences, emphasizing legislative intent for discretion....
The requirement to provide an accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence is a mandatory, substantive right. This procedural mandate applies to all cognizance orders pas....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
