<?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 (1) TMI 1449 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461301</link>
    <description>Under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, bail is controlled by the statutory twin conditions in section 45, and release cannot be granted unless those requirements are met. The Court also stated that an accused need not be named in the predicate offence to face prosecution under the Act, and that arrest before cognizance is not impermissible where the authorised officer has material to believe an offence has been committed. On the facts, the surrounding transactions, retention of substantial proceeds, investigation material, and criminal history did not show the money was untainted or justify the claim of lack of knowledge. Parity and custody period were rejected as grounds to bypass the statutory bar.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:26:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=809682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 1449 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461301</link>
      <description>Under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, bail is controlled by the statutory twin conditions in section 45, and release cannot be granted unless those requirements are met. The Court also stated that an accused need not be named in the predicate offence to face prosecution under the Act, and that arrest before cognizance is not impermissible where the authorised officer has material to believe an offence has been committed. On the facts, the surrounding transactions, retention of substantial proceeds, investigation material, and criminal history did not show the money was untainted or justify the claim of lack of knowledge. Parity and custody period were rejected as grounds to bypass the statutory bar.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>