<?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>2023 (1) TMI 502 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432755</link>
    <description>Acceptance of a C-Summary in the predicate offence was treated as prima facie bringing the foundational criminal proceedings to an end for the limited purpose of interim bail in the connected PMLA case. Applying the principle that money-laundering depends on a scheduled offence and cannot survive where the underlying criminal case is finally discharged, acquitted, or quashed, the Court held that the rigours of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not, prima facie, prevent interim release on the facts. The Court also rejected the argument that a revision period automatically stayed the order accepting the C-Summary, and considered custody length, lack of antecedents, and parity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=701524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 502 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432755</link>
      <description>Acceptance of a C-Summary in the predicate offence was treated as prima facie bringing the foundational criminal proceedings to an end for the limited purpose of interim bail in the connected PMLA case. Applying the principle that money-laundering depends on a scheduled offence and cannot survive where the underlying criminal case is finally discharged, acquitted, or quashed, the Court held that the rigours of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not, prima facie, prevent interim release on the facts. The Court also rejected the argument that a revision period automatically stayed the order accepting the C-Summary, and considered custody length, lack of antecedents, and parity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>