<?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>2017 (9) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348511</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC held that regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is governed by the Act&#039;s special bail regime, which overrides the general power under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Because the allegations involved laundering through accommodation entries, layering and projection of tainted funds as untainted property, the Court found no material basis to conclude that the accused was not guilty or unlikely to reoffend, so bail was not warranted. The Court also rejected the objections that proceedings could not begin before cognizance in the scheduled offence and that earlier placement of the predicate offence in Part B barred application of the bail restrictions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2017 10:38:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1268 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348511</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC held that regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is governed by the Act&#039;s special bail regime, which overrides the general power under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Because the allegations involved laundering through accommodation entries, layering and projection of tainted funds as untainted property, the Court found no material basis to conclude that the accused was not guilty or unlikely to reoffend, so bail was not warranted. The Court also rejected the objections that proceedings could not begin before cognizance in the scheduled offence and that earlier placement of the predicate offence in Part B barred application of the bail restrictions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>