<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1795 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT   </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284834</link>
    <description>The court denied the petitioner&#039;s application for anticipatory bail due to the serious allegations of money laundering and the risk of tampering with evidence. The court found that the petitioner&#039;s involvement in concealing and transferring proceeds of crime, including arranging loans and orchestrating financial transactions to conceal the illicit origins of funds, indicated a deliberate attempt to launder money. The court also considered the amended Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which imposes strict conditions for bail, and concluded that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for anticipatory bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:50:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1795 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT   </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284834</link>
      <description>The court denied the petitioner&#039;s application for anticipatory bail due to the serious allegations of money laundering and the risk of tampering with evidence. The court found that the petitioner&#039;s involvement in concealing and transferring proceeds of crime, including arranging loans and orchestrating financial transactions to conceal the illicit origins of funds, indicated a deliberate attempt to launder money. The court also considered the amended Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which imposes strict conditions for bail, and concluded that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for anticipatory bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>