<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (11) TMI 131 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267322</link>
    <description>Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires satisfaction of the twin conditions that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. On the material collected in investigation, the Court found links between the applicant and receipt and layering of funds traced to the alleged scheduled offences, with the source of the money remaining unsatisfactorily explained. The statutory presumption under Section 24 operated against the applicant, and at the bail stage the court could not treat the funds as untainted. Bail was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 131 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267322</link>
      <description>Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires satisfaction of the twin conditions that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. On the material collected in investigation, the Court found links between the applicant and receipt and layering of funds traced to the alleged scheduled offences, with the source of the money remaining unsatisfactorily explained. The statutory presumption under Section 24 operated against the applicant, and at the bail stage the court could not treat the funds as untainted. Bail was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>