<?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 1050 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433303</link>
    <description>Money laundering under PMLA was treated as a continuing offence, so the decisive factor was the later dealing with proceeds of crime by concealment, possession, use, or projection as untainted property; prosecution remained maintainable even though the predicate offence arose earlier and the scheduled offence was included in the PMLA schedule later. The court also noted that a charge-sheet in the scheduled offence and prior provisional attachment were not conditions precedent to investigation or prosecution under PMLA, because the laundering offence is independent and the Act permits survey, search, seizure, and arrest without those preconditions. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, and refusal to apply concurrent-sentence benefit under section 427 CrPC, were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2023 08:32:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=702798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 1050 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433303</link>
      <description>Money laundering under PMLA was treated as a continuing offence, so the decisive factor was the later dealing with proceeds of crime by concealment, possession, use, or projection as untainted property; prosecution remained maintainable even though the predicate offence arose earlier and the scheduled offence was included in the PMLA schedule later. The court also noted that a charge-sheet in the scheduled offence and prior provisional attachment were not conditions precedent to investigation or prosecution under PMLA, because the laundering offence is independent and the Act permits survey, search, seizure, and arrest without those preconditions. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, and refusal to apply concurrent-sentence benefit under section 427 CrPC, were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>