<?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>2024 (5) TMI 525 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752472</link>
    <description>Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is governed by the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and no likelihood of reoffending. The court examined complaint material, Section 50 statements, seizure evidence and the investigation record, and treated money-laundering as a continuing, independent offence with the Section 24 burden operating against the accused at the bail stage. It also noted that a person need not be named in the scheduled offence if the material shows knowing involvement in proceeds of crime. Parity with a co-accused was rejected because the attributed role was materially different.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 May 2024 08:34:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 525 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752472</link>
      <description>Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is governed by the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and no likelihood of reoffending. The court examined complaint material, Section 50 statements, seizure evidence and the investigation record, and treated money-laundering as a continuing, independent offence with the Section 24 burden operating against the accused at the bail stage. It also noted that a person need not be named in the scheduled offence if the material shows knowing involvement in proceeds of crime. Parity with a co-accused was rejected because the attributed role was materially different.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>