<?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 (3) TMI 1356 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458020</link>
    <description>Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires arrest on recorded reasons based on existing material and communication of grounds, and the arrest and remand were treated as valid because the remand court had investigative material then available. The investigation was held to disclose prima facie involvement in money-laundering, as the allegations and Section 50 statements indicated use of official position to facilitate a fraudulent land transfer and to give a lawful colour to transactions based on forged records. Bail was declined because the twin conditions under Section 45 were not met, and parity was rejected where the accused&#039;s position and alleged misuse of public office made the cases materially different.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:06:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1356 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458020</link>
      <description>Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires arrest on recorded reasons based on existing material and communication of grounds, and the arrest and remand were treated as valid because the remand court had investigative material then available. The investigation was held to disclose prima facie involvement in money-laundering, as the allegations and Section 50 statements indicated use of official position to facilitate a fraudulent land transfer and to give a lawful colour to transactions based on forged records. Bail was declined because the twin conditions under Section 45 were not met, and parity was rejected where the accused&#039;s position and alleged misuse of public office made the cases materially different.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>