https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299186 In a PMLA pre-arrest bail request, the Court treated alleged money-laundering as a distinct, continuing offence and held that the statutory bar, the gravity of the allegations, the scale of the properties involved, and the need for effective investigation justified refusal of anticipatory bail. It also noted that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out on the facts presented. The objections based on double jeopardy and retrospective operation were rejected because the prosecution for the predicate offence and the money-laundering proceedings were distinct, and the relevant inquiry concerned the continuing dealing with alleged proceeds of crime rather than only the date of original acquisition. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299186 In a PMLA pre-arrest bail request, the Court treated alleged money-laundering as a distinct, continuing offence and held that the statutory bar, the gravity of the allegations, the scale of the properties involved, and the need for effective investigation justified refusal of anticipatory bail. It also noted that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out on the facts presented. The objections based on double jeopardy and retrospective operation were rejected because the prosecution for the predicate offence and the money-laundering proceedings were distinct, and the relevant inquiry concerned the continuing dealing with alleged proceeds of crime rather than only the date of original acquisition. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299186