<?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>2022 (2) TMI 1303 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305222</link>
    <description>Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 barred bail where the material showed active involvement in laundering proceeds of crime and the twin conditions were not met. The complaint and witness statements indicated that alleged illegal gains from an MMRDA contract constituted proceeds of crime, and that the applicant had manipulated profitability sheets, enabled under-deployment billing, and assisted the sharing and use of those proceeds. On that material, the Court treated the case as falling within Section 3 and Section 2(1)(u), and held that reasonable grounds could not be recorded for believing the applicant was not guilty. Bail was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 22:48:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 1303 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305222</link>
      <description>Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 barred bail where the material showed active involvement in laundering proceeds of crime and the twin conditions were not met. The complaint and witness statements indicated that alleged illegal gains from an MMRDA contract constituted proceeds of crime, and that the applicant had manipulated profitability sheets, enabled under-deployment billing, and assisted the sharing and use of those proceeds. On that material, the Court treated the case as falling within Section 3 and Section 2(1)(u), and held that reasonable grounds could not be recorded for believing the applicant was not guilty. Bail was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>