Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Seshasayee, J
P. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the fraudulent loan and property purchases. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding prosecution under pmla. (Para 5 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's reasoning for distinguishing predicate offences from money laundering. (Para 9 , 15) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the quash petition. (Para 16) |
1. Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 62 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court constituted u/s.43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [Principal Sessions Judge], Chennai, the present petition has been filed.
2. At the outset, it may be necessary to state that in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the 'PMLA'], there will invariably be two sets of accused viz., one in the predicate offence and other in the prosecution launched by the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we are referring to the rank of the accused as set out in the impugned complaint in C.C. No. 62 of 2016 that has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
3. The minimum facts that are required for deciding this quash petition are as under:
3.1. One G. Srinivasan [A1] and R. Manoharan [A2] enter
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
