https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408531 The article explains that the twin conditions formerly read into Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as not revived by the Finance Act, 2018 amendment, because the amendment changed the opening words without validly re-enacting the struck-down conditions or supplying retrospective validation. It also notes that, on the anticipatory bail question, allegations of a serious economic offence, a detailed money trail, layered transactions and the need for custodial interrogation justified refusal of pre-arrest protection at that stage. The discussion states the ratio that a mere change in trigger words does not restore an unconstitutional bail restriction unless the conditions are expressly re-enacted or saved by a validating law. en-us Wed, 02 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:08:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408531 The article explains that the twin conditions formerly read into Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as not revived by the Finance Act, 2018 amendment, because the amendment changed the opening words without validly re-enacting the struck-down conditions or supplying retrospective validation. It also notes that, on the anticipatory bail question, allegations of a serious economic offence, a detailed money trail, layered transactions and the need for custodial interrogation justified refusal of pre-arrest protection at that stage. The discussion states the ratio that a mere change in trigger words does not restore an unconstitutional bail restriction unless the conditions are expressly re-enacted or saved by a validating law. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 02 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408531