Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Bail denied in money laundering case for hawala operator connected to online betting proceeds under Section 45 PMLA

        Sunil Dammani Versus Directorate Of Enforcement.

        Sunil Dammani Versus Directorate Of Enforcement. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Second Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. and Sections 45 and 65 of PMLA, 2002.
        2. Predicate Offence and Money Laundering Allegations.
        3. Evidence and Mens Rea.
        4. Proceeds of Crime.
        5. Legal Precedents and Judicial Considerations.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Second Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. and Sections 45 and 65 of PMLA, 2002:
        The applicant filed a second bail application after the first was dismissed. The application was made under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. and Sections 45 and 65 of the PMLA, 2002. The applicant was arrested on 23-8-2023 for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002.

        2. Predicate Offence and Money Laundering Allegations:
        The case involves an ECIR registered against Mahadev Online Book and others for online betting and money laundering. Various FIRs across the country, including one from Andhra Pradesh, were cited, implicating the applicant and others in illegal online betting and money laundering activities. The applicant and his brother were accused of facilitating large-scale Havala transactions for bribing officials to protect the Mahadev Book App.

        3. Evidence and Mens Rea:
        The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution's complaint did not reveal the applicant's involvement in any predicate offence. The applicant was implicated based on statements from co-accused and others under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002. The counsel contended that these statements could not be used as evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The applicant allegedly lacked mens rea as there was no evidence he knew the Havala money was proceeds of crime from illegal betting.

        4. Proceeds of Crime:
        The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the applicant and his brother facilitated large-scale Havala transactions, knowing they were proceeds of crime. The applicant admitted to receiving commissions for these transactions. Properties worth Rs. 4.19 crores, allegedly bought with proceeds of crime, were attached. Statements from various witnesses under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, supported these allegations.

        5. Legal Precedents and Judicial Considerations:
        The court referred to several legal precedents, including the Delhi High Court's observations in Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate and the Supreme Court's rulings in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, it need not delve deep into the merits but should consider if there is a prima facie case. The court noted that economic offences require a different approach due to their grave nature and potential impact on the economy.

        Conclusion:
        The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to believe the applicant was involved in money laundering. The applicant's role in facilitating Havala transactions and his connections with key figures in the Mahadev Book App were significant. The court found that the applicant's contentions lacked merit, and the evidence suggested he was aware the funds were proceeds of crime. Therefore, the bail application was rejected, considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found