<?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 (10) TMI 681 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444458</link>
    <description>Custodial remand to the Directorate of Enforcement was examined against Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, focusing on whether written grounds of arrest were supplied and whether the remand court applied its mind to the material indicating involvement in money laundering. The remand record showed that the Sessions Court perused the written grounds of arrest, recorded that they were supplied to the accused, and considered the investigation material concerning the accused&#039;s alleged role in the company structure and the wider conspiracy. The court distinguished the precedent relied on by the petitioner and found that the remand was not based merely on non-cooperation, but on material supporting the investigating officer&#039;s view. The remand order was therefore upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 681 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444458</link>
      <description>Custodial remand to the Directorate of Enforcement was examined against Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, focusing on whether written grounds of arrest were supplied and whether the remand court applied its mind to the material indicating involvement in money laundering. The remand record showed that the Sessions Court perused the written grounds of arrest, recorded that they were supplied to the accused, and considered the investigation material concerning the accused&#039;s alleged role in the company structure and the wider conspiracy. The court distinguished the precedent relied on by the petitioner and found that the remand was not based merely on non-cooperation, but on material supporting the investigating officer&#039;s view. The remand order was therefore upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>