https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325697 Warrants of arrest in a PMLA complaint were upheld where the accused had earlier failed to avoid custodial process, showed no change in circumstances, and remained non-cooperative despite notices and summons. The Court treated the choice of coercive process as a matter of judicial discretion requiring proper application of mind, and relied on the gravity of the alleged money laundering offence and the statutory bail policy to distinguish the authorities cited by the petitioners. Earlier observations in other cases were held fact-specific and not applicable. The challenge to the arrest warrants was rejected, and no interference was warranted. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325697 Warrants of arrest in a PMLA complaint were upheld where the accused had earlier failed to avoid custodial process, showed no change in circumstances, and remained non-cooperative despite notices and summons. The Court treated the choice of coercive process as a matter of judicial discretion requiring proper application of mind, and relied on the gravity of the alleged money laundering offence and the statutory bail policy to distinguish the authorities cited by the petitioners. Earlier observations in other cases were held fact-specific and not applicable. The challenge to the arrest warrants was rejected, and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325697