<?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>2026 (2) TMI 1158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787010</link>
    <description>Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained unless there is material linking the applicant&#039;s acts to proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. Here, the alleged proceeds arose in 2020-2021, while the property relied on against the applicant had been acquired in 2005-2007, so no nexus was shown. The material also did not disclose that the applicant knowingly assisted concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of those proceeds as untainted property. The process order further failed to show application of mind to the material against the applicant, so the threshold of sufficient ground to proceed was not met. Relief was therefore granted to the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787010</link>
      <description>Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained unless there is material linking the applicant&#039;s acts to proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. Here, the alleged proceeds arose in 2020-2021, while the property relied on against the applicant had been acquired in 2005-2007, so no nexus was shown. The material also did not disclose that the applicant knowingly assisted concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of those proceeds as untainted property. The process order further failed to show application of mind to the material against the applicant, so the threshold of sufficient ground to proceed was not met. Relief was therefore granted to the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>