https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300991 Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was controlled by the twin conditions in Section 45(1): satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor and a judicial finding of reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty and was unlikely to reoffend while on bail. The Madras HC treated those requirements as mandatory in an economic offence context. On the facts alleged-use of inflated or fabricated documents, diversion of loan funds through group entities, and laundering of proceeds of crime-the petitioners failed to place material showing reasonable grounds of innocence. The seriousness of the allegations, the amount involved, and the stated modus operandi weighed against release, and the bail petitions were dismissed. en-us Tue, 01 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Mar 2022 08:40:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300991 Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was controlled by the twin conditions in Section 45(1): satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor and a judicial finding of reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty and was unlikely to reoffend while on bail. The Madras HC treated those requirements as mandatory in an economic offence context. On the facts alleged-use of inflated or fabricated documents, diversion of loan funds through group entities, and laundering of proceeds of crime-the petitioners failed to place material showing reasonable grounds of innocence. The seriousness of the allegations, the amount involved, and the stated modus operandi weighed against release, and the bail petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 01 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300991