<?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 (8) TMI 1666 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465748</link>
    <description>Where a person evades investigation despite repeated summons and earlier coercive process, fresh arrest warrants issued to secure appearance and their execution with police assistance were held valid. The Court found no breach of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 because the authorised officer recorded reasons to believe, supplied the grounds of arrest, forwarded the required material, and the remand order reflected application of mind to a prima facie money-laundering case. The refusal to discharge the petitioner from Enforcement Directorate custody was also sustained, as the discharge stage could not be used to seek a pre-trial finding akin to acquittal or conviction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 11:01:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1666 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465748</link>
      <description>Where a person evades investigation despite repeated summons and earlier coercive process, fresh arrest warrants issued to secure appearance and their execution with police assistance were held valid. The Court found no breach of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 because the authorised officer recorded reasons to believe, supplied the grounds of arrest, forwarded the required material, and the remand order reflected application of mind to a prima facie money-laundering case. The refusal to discharge the petitioner from Enforcement Directorate custody was also sustained, as the discharge stage could not be used to seek a pre-trial finding akin to acquittal or conviction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>