<?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 (5) TMI 1005 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770733</link>
    <description>A person who intentionally aids a public servant in concealing disproportionate assets by holding them in her own name is liable for abetment of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court applied the settled meaning of abetment under the Indian Penal Code, including intentional aid and concealment, and held that assistance in amassing or hiding illicit wealth can attract liability under Section 13(1)(e). Concurrent findings showed the assets were acquired during the check period in the appellant&#039;s name and that she participated in concealing them; the subsequent remarriage of the co-accused did not affect liability because the relevant conduct had already occurred. Conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1005 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770733</link>
      <description>A person who intentionally aids a public servant in concealing disproportionate assets by holding them in her own name is liable for abetment of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court applied the settled meaning of abetment under the Indian Penal Code, including intentional aid and concealment, and held that assistance in amassing or hiding illicit wealth can attract liability under Section 13(1)(e). Concurrent findings showed the assets were acquired during the check period in the appellant&#039;s name and that she participated in concealing them; the subsequent remarriage of the co-accused did not affect liability because the relevant conduct had already occurred. Conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>