<?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 (11) TMI 927 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761941</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was declined because the Court found the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 were not satisfied. On the material collected, including alleged diversion of loan funds, inflated turnover, fictitious stock declarations, Section 50 statements, and the petitioner&#039;s alleged role as an active participant and beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, the Court held that reasonable grounds were not made out to believe the petitioner was not guilty. Prolonged custody and trial delay were considered, but the Court held they could not override the PMLA bail restrictions. The petition for regular bail therefore failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:59:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 927 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761941</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was declined because the Court found the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 were not satisfied. On the material collected, including alleged diversion of loan funds, inflated turnover, fictitious stock declarations, Section 50 statements, and the petitioner&#039;s alleged role as an active participant and beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, the Court held that reasonable grounds were not made out to believe the petitioner was not guilty. Prolonged custody and trial delay were considered, but the Court held they could not override the PMLA bail restrictions. The petition for regular bail therefore failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>