<?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>2021 (12) TMI 1234 - CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416468</link>
    <description>In a bail request under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Court found a prima facie trail of proceeds of crime through layering, placement and integration, including conversion of a trust into a Section 8 company, alleged forged documents, cash withdrawals, and diversion of funds to related accounts and property purchases. It treated Section 50 statements and the documentary trail as sufficient at the bail stage to indicate involvement in the offence under Section 3. The fact that the applicant was not named as an accused in the scheduled offence did not by itself negate the money-laundering allegations, and the bail principles under Section 439 CrPC did not assist on the facts. Bail was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2021 08:31:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1234 - CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416468</link>
      <description>In a bail request under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Court found a prima facie trail of proceeds of crime through layering, placement and integration, including conversion of a trust into a Section 8 company, alleged forged documents, cash withdrawals, and diversion of funds to related accounts and property purchases. It treated Section 50 statements and the documentary trail as sufficient at the bail stage to indicate involvement in the offence under Section 3. The fact that the applicant was not named as an accused in the scheduled offence did not by itself negate the money-laundering allegations, and the bail principles under Section 439 CrPC did not assist on the facts. Bail was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>