<?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 (4) TMI 1349 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465532</link>
    <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regular bail depends on the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45, read with the statutory presumption in Section 24 and the special statute&#039;s overriding effect. On the prima facie material, including Section 50 statements, search-and-seizure results, routing of funds through relatives&#039; and intermediaries&#039; accounts, and alleged acquisition and projection of assets as untainted property, the Court treated the record as showing direct involvement in handling proceeds of crime. Bail was refused because the petitioner failed to show reasonable grounds for believing he was not guilty or that he would not reoffend, and completion of investigation or absence from the predicate FIR did not by itself justify release.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 19:04:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1349 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465532</link>
      <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regular bail depends on the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45, read with the statutory presumption in Section 24 and the special statute&#039;s overriding effect. On the prima facie material, including Section 50 statements, search-and-seizure results, routing of funds through relatives&#039; and intermediaries&#039; accounts, and alleged acquisition and projection of assets as untainted property, the Court treated the record as showing direct involvement in handling proceeds of crime. Bail was refused because the petitioner failed to show reasonable grounds for believing he was not guilty or that he would not reoffend, and completion of investigation or absence from the predicate FIR did not by itself justify release.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>