Back
ILESH J. VORA
HEMANSHU RAJNIKANT SHAH – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The present writ petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the provisional attachment Order No. 5/2020 dated 17.12.2020 issued in ECIR/01/STSZO/2017, by Deputy Director of Enforcement, Surat, Sub-Zonal Office, Surat and consequential proceedings, under the provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PML Act 2002” for short).
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present petition are as under:
(ii) The respondent No. 2 thereafter in exercise of its power under Section 5 (5) of the PML Act, 2002 filed a complaint being O.C. No. 1382/2021 before the adjudicating authority on 24.12.2020.
(iii) The respondent No. 3 - Adjudicating Authority after hearing the affected parties, confirmed the order of provisional attachment and held that the properties provisionally attached by the respondent No. 2 are “proceeds of crime” in terms of Section 2(1)(u) of the P
Properties acquired prior to the commission of a predicate offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, as they do not constitute proceeds of crime.
The court upheld the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before invoking writ jurisdiction, affirming that 'proceeds of crime' includes property in....
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
