Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
At the discharge and charge-framing stage under the PMLA, the court reiterated that the enquiry is limited to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, raises prima facie grave suspicion; the accused's defence and disputed explanations are not to be weighed at that stage. On the record, the court found sufficient material showing alleged bribery-linked layering, concealment and projection of proceeds as untainted property, so the refusal to discharge and framing of charge were upheld. Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA were treated as admissible and capable of corroborating documentary evidence. The Special Court at Ranchi was also held to have territorial jurisdiction because the scheduled offence and alleged conspiracy were connected with Ranchi, and no patent illegality justified revisional interference.
At the discharge and charge-framing stage under the PMLA, the court reiterated that the enquiry is limited to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, raises prima facie grave suspicion; the accused's defence and disputed explanations are not to be weighed at that stage. On the record, the court found sufficient material showing alleged bribery-linked layering, concealment and projection of proceeds as untainted property, so the refusal to discharge and framing of charge were upheld. Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA were treated as admissible and capable of corroborating documentary evidence. The Special Court at Ranchi was also held to have territorial jurisdiction because the scheduled offence and alleged conspiracy were connected with Ranchi, and no patent illegality justified revisional interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.