https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457987 The Jharkhand HC dismissed a regular bail application in a money laundering case involving illegal acquisition of land worth Rs.4 crores. The court held that the petitioner was directly involved in procuring proceeds of crime through connivance with co-accused, satisfying ingredients of Sections 3-4 of PMLA 2002. The court rejected the parity argument, distinguishing the petitioner's role from a co-accused who was granted bail, noting their involvement levels differed significantly. The twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLA were not fulfilled, and no exceptional grounds existed to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC for bail grant. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:17:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457987 The Jharkhand HC dismissed a regular bail application in a money laundering case involving illegal acquisition of land worth Rs.4 crores. The court held that the petitioner was directly involved in procuring proceeds of crime through connivance with co-accused, satisfying ingredients of Sections 3-4 of PMLA 2002. The court rejected the parity argument, distinguishing the petitioner's role from a co-accused who was granted bail, noting their involvement levels differed significantly. The twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLA were not fulfilled, and no exceptional grounds existed to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC for bail grant. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457987