Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 empowers authorities to provisionally attach property suspected of being involved

In this blog, we will walk through an example of how Section 5 of the PMLA is invoked in practice, while ensuring we keep the identities of the parties involved anonymous.

On July 31, 2013, NSEL suspended its exchange operations, and approximately 13,000 persons who traded on its platform claimed to have been duped by about 24 trading Members, who defaulted on their payment obligations amounting to approximately Rs. 5,600 Crores.

Introduction The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act is designed to safeguard investors from fraudulent financial establishments. One of its most critical provisions is Section 4, which empowers the government to attach properties of financial establishments that fail to return deposits or act fraudulently. The importance of this provision cannot be overstated, as financial fraud has been a growing concern, and protecting depositors' interests is a fun

Sanction of Prosecution of Public Servants: Section 19 of PC Act or Section 197 of the Code?

What is the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors [In Financial Establishments] Act, 1999? Why was it promulgated? When did it come into force? Is it still in existence? If yes, who uses it? Who is it applicable to? Do we have any mechanism to enforce the Act? Why does it refer to Depositors? Can a single Victim use the Act for the purposes of recovery of money? Or there need be group of persons to take recourse to the Act? An humble attempt is made to answer all s

Before analyzing the provisions of the MPID Act, it is utmost important to understand what, when and how does the MPID Act come into existence in a given case. In order to understand what, when and how provisions of the MPID Act are invoked, let us take a pilot case. For example: If ‘X’ accepted deposits from various persons being A, B & C for the sale of their respective units on the assurance of delivery of flats on time, and failed to do so in spite of repeated reminders a

Any Act or Statute that comes into force in Centre or State is amenable to challenge before the appropriate Court of Law. The challenge can be with respect to its Constitutionality, i.e. whether any Act is in harmony with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  The MPID Act faced a similar constitutional challenge. The first challenge was made in the case of Vijay C. Puljal v. State of Maharashtra ¹ . A Full Bench of Bombay High Court declared the Act

1.1 Short Introduction The Companies Act, 2013 ¹  provides for the powers and procedure of the investigative arm of Central Government,  Serious Fraud Investigation Office ² . Chapter 14 of the said Act outlines the role of SFIO in terms of Investigation, Searches, Seizure and Arrest. SFIO is relatively a new arm of Investigating Agency of the Central Government. It was formulated as recent as the year 2014. The requirement to bring in a new arm of Central Government is highl