https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465708 Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was declined because the allegations disclosed routing of bank funds through controlled companies, creation of shell entities, and diversion through paper transactions. The Court treated money laundering under Section 3 as covering concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property, and applied the stringent bail restrictions in Section 45, which prevail over the general power under Section 439 CrPC where inconsistent. Given the alleged scale and continuing nature of the activity, together with apprehension of witness influence, the petitioner was not enlarged on bail. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:04:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465708 Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was declined because the allegations disclosed routing of bank funds through controlled companies, creation of shell entities, and diversion through paper transactions. The Court treated money laundering under Section 3 as covering concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property, and applied the stringent bail restrictions in Section 45, which prevail over the general power under Section 439 CrPC where inconsistent. Given the alleged scale and continuing nature of the activity, together with apprehension of witness influence, the petitioner was not enlarged on bail. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465708