<?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>2025 (1) TMI 434 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764372</link>
    <description>The HC quashed money laundering proceedings against petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding no ingredients of money laundering offense existed. The case involved fraudulent loan procurement for township development where petitioners allegedly created false society and obtained bank loan through fraudulent means. Court held that since no money was transferred to petitioners&#039; accounts and they never possessed or controlled the alleged proceeds of crime, money laundering charges were unsustainable. The court distinguished between bank fraud/forgery and money laundering, noting that merely mortgaging property to secure fraudulently obtained loan cannot constitute money laundering. Petition allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 434 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764372</link>
      <description>The HC quashed money laundering proceedings against petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding no ingredients of money laundering offense existed. The case involved fraudulent loan procurement for township development where petitioners allegedly created false society and obtained bank loan through fraudulent means. Court held that since no money was transferred to petitioners&#039; accounts and they never possessed or controlled the alleged proceeds of crime, money laundering charges were unsustainable. The court distinguished between bank fraud/forgery and money laundering, noting that merely mortgaging property to secure fraudulently obtained loan cannot constitute money laundering. Petition allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>