<?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 (4) TMI 375 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768461</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was examined in light of the Act&#039;s twin conditions, the continuing nature of money-laundering, the presumption under the statute, and the alleged involvement in proceeds of crime. The High Court treated the complaint and statements as prima facie showing dealings in non-saleable land, cash transactions, and transfers through family members linked to the proceeds of crime. It held that non-impleadment in the predicate offence did not assist the petitioner because money-laundering is an independent offence. The plea of parity was rejected as the petitioner&#039;s attributed role was materially different from the co-accused, and bail was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 17:40:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 375 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768461</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was examined in light of the Act&#039;s twin conditions, the continuing nature of money-laundering, the presumption under the statute, and the alleged involvement in proceeds of crime. The High Court treated the complaint and statements as prima facie showing dealings in non-saleable land, cash transactions, and transfers through family members linked to the proceeds of crime. It held that non-impleadment in the predicate offence did not assist the petitioner because money-laundering is an independent offence. The plea of parity was rejected as the petitioner&#039;s attributed role was materially different from the co-accused, and bail was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>