https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785201 Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) was held inapplicable because the earlier prosecution had not ended in conviction or acquittal, and the alleged laundering was treated as a continuing offence involving fresh acts during the subsistence of the earlier investigation. Regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because the twin conditions were not satisfied, having regard to the alleged siphoning, untraced proceeds of crime, proclaimed-offender status, and the risk of flight or interference with the process. The age and health plea was not treated as determinative, and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2026 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785201 Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) was held inapplicable because the earlier prosecution had not ended in conviction or acquittal, and the alleged laundering was treated as a continuing offence involving fresh acts during the subsistence of the earlier investigation. Regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because the twin conditions were not satisfied, having regard to the alleged siphoning, untraced proceeds of crime, proclaimed-offender status, and the risk of flight or interference with the process. The age and health plea was not treated as determinative, and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785201