Facts: Present writ petition filed for a declaration that the second proviso to Section 5(1) of PMLA is ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution.

Held: The Delhi High Court has opined that the proviso to section 5(1) of PMLA is not violating Article 14. Further in the light of the case Shayara Bano v. Union of India (supra) the Apex Court opined that :

"Manifest arbitrariness, there

The aforementioned case raises a question on the validity of the section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The section 45 imposes 2 conditions which must be fulfilled for the grant of bail, they are:

• Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose any application for release on bail.
• Court must be satisfied that the accused was not guilty of such offences, and that he does not commit any offence while on bail.

Held:

In the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union Of India (MANU/SC/1480/2017   [2018]145SCL96(SC   (2018)11SCC1  2018 (2) SCJ 353) , the question that came before the Supreme Court was of the constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA. Section 45(1) imposes two conditions for grant of bail where an offence punis

In the above case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that,

• It appears to this Court that there is no alternative to the Directorate of Enforcement but to follow the Cr PC, except where there are specific provisions in the PMLA that provide an alternative procedure.

• Given the mandate of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India the powers under the PMLA in relation to t

In this case, two substantial and important issues were answered by the Hon'ble Court:

1. whether Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) is applicable to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), and
   
    
2. whether the provisions of PMLA would apply if the shares were purchased before the enactment of PMLA?
<

In this case the issue was whether the RBI should not entertain any compounding application of a subject matter which was part of money laundering being investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) under PMLA, in view of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 in the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 which stipulates that, in case of certain contingencies as mentioned therein, the RBI should not entertain any compounding application.

The case deals with application for bail under section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant is 62 years of age and is an MBBS doctor by profession and is practicing and having number of medical institutes. Applicant is on bail in the concerned Scheduled offences.

In the present matter the prosecution has cited total 231 witnesses and there are in all 83 accused persons. The trial of the PMLA case would take considerable time to conclude and thus, keep

In this case the High Court of Madras held that supplementary complaint can be filed based upon the further investigation and after obtaining special permission for further investigation, as provided under the CrPC, under Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) the Enforcement Directorate can complete the further investigation and file a supplementary complaint in consonance with Section 44 (1) (b) and 45 of the PMLA.

In this case of Aasma Mohammed Farooq and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., a writ petition had been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the provisions of Section 5(1), 5(5), 8(3), 8(5) and 8(6) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('Act' in short). Apart from that the Petitioners sought quashing of provisional attachment order No. 08/2018 dated June 20, 2018/impugned original complaint No. 998 of 2008  and show cause notice dated July 31,

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of J Sekar vs. Union of India & Ors, W.P. (C) 5320/2017, held as under:

“The reasons to believe at every stage must be noted down by the officer in the file.”….

“A copy of s