<?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 (3) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787756</link>
    <description>A complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act disclosed a prima facie offence where it traced linked predicate FIRs for illegal granite quarrying and connected the petitioner&#039;s firm and quarry land to the laundering of proceeds of crime. The Court treated the statutory definitions of proceeds of crime and property as broad enough to cover property derived from or used in connection with scheduled criminal activity, and held that prior acquisition of the land did not defeat the complaint where later use in concealment, possession, transfer, renewal of lease, and projection as untainted property was alleged. At the quashing stage, the Court declined a roving enquiry into the prosecution case and found sufficient particulars for trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 08:33:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787756</link>
      <description>A complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act disclosed a prima facie offence where it traced linked predicate FIRs for illegal granite quarrying and connected the petitioner&#039;s firm and quarry land to the laundering of proceeds of crime. The Court treated the statutory definitions of proceeds of crime and property as broad enough to cover property derived from or used in connection with scheduled criminal activity, and held that prior acquisition of the land did not defeat the complaint where later use in concealment, possession, transfer, renewal of lease, and projection as untainted property was alleged. At the quashing stage, the Court declined a roving enquiry into the prosecution case and found sufficient particulars for trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>