TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies bail in money laundering case based on seriousness of allegations and risk of petitioner absconding.</h1> <h3>Abdul Haleem Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office-II, Chennai</h3> The Court denied bail to the petitioner in a case involving offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The decision was based on the ... Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - twin conditions as mandated under Section 45 of PML Act satisfied or not - corroborative evidences or not - tampering with the evidences or not - HELD THAT:- From the account of the A1 and A3, the money has been layered and operated the account where the proceeds of crime parked at Hong Kong. Hence, the petitioner parked a sum of Rs.59.47 crores outside the country with the support of money parked outside the country may go underground and as such it is impossible to make him to participate in the trial. Further, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and influencing the co-accused. That apart, the twin conditions as mandated under Section 45 of PML Act shall apply in this case and the petitioner failed to adduce anything contrary to establish that he is not involved in the offence. Therefore, there is no change of circumstances to consider the present bail petition. This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Petition dismissed. Issues:Bail application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.Analysis:The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for offenses under the PML Act. The respondent registered an ECIR for various offenses under the IPC, which were linked to money laundering activities. The petitioner was accused of assisting in opening accounts and layering funds for different entities. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in transferring significant amounts of money internationally, operating accounts in Hong Kong, and facilitating the movement of illicit funds. The defense argued that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that the petitioner was falsely implicated. They contended that there was no evidence linking the petitioner to the crimes or showing that he benefited from the transactions. The defense also emphasized that the petitioner had been in custody since the arrest and that there was no proof of his involvement in the offenses. The Special Public Prosecutor countered the defense's claims by stating that the petitioner's involvement was supported by witness statements and evidence of fund transfers. It was alleged that the petitioner played a crucial role in layering funds and operating accounts where illicit proceeds were parked. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing the country and tampering with evidence if granted bail. The prosecutor argued that the conditions under Section 45 of the PML Act applied in this case, and there were no new circumstances to warrant bail. After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Court decided not to grant bail to the petitioner. The Court noted the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of the petitioner absconding, and the potential for tampering with evidence. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the petitioner remained in custody.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
