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>Bail petitions dismissed in money laundering case as Section 45 twin conditions not satisfied</h1> <h3>V. Janarthanan, A. Saravanakumar, N. Umashankar @ N.M. Umasangarr, N. Arunkumar @ N. Arun Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai</h3> V. Janarthanan, A. Saravanakumar, N. Umashankar @ N.M. Umasangarr, N. Arunkumar @ N. Arun Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, ... Issues:1. Bail applications under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002.2. Twin conditions for grant of bail under PMLA.3. Retrospective application of amended Section 45 of PMLA.4. Consideration of bail applications based on general law.Analysis:1. The petitioners, former directors and employees of a company involved in financial irregularities, filed bail applications under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002. The case involved allegations of collecting deposits without permission, diverting funds, and non-cooperation during investigations. The Economic Offences Wing of Tamil Nadu Police registered a case leading to Enforcement Directorate proceedings under PMLA.2. The court considered the 'twin conditions' for granting bail under PMLA, focusing on the severity of the offenses and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding. Previous bail applications were dismissed for not meeting these conditions. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA, emphasizing the stringent criteria for bail in such cases.3. The defense argued against the retrospective application of the amended Section 45 of PMLA, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment. However, the court relied on a recent Supreme Court decision that clarified the retrospective operation of the amendment, reinforcing the requirement to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under PMLA.4. The court rejected the petitioners' plea for bail, noting their failure to challenge previous dismissal orders and the continued relevance of the twin conditions. The court emphasized that the petitioners had not completed half of the maximum sentence, precluding the application of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. The dismissal of the bail applications was based on the strict criteria set by PMLA and upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring compliance with legal provisions and judicial discipline.
TaxTMI 