<?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>2025 (10) TMI 1380 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467489</link>
    <description>Existence of a live predicate scheduled offence and material supporting a written reason to believe are required for registration of an ECIR and arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Multiple FIRs, investigative material, search statements and seized evidence indicated online betting operations, fund receipt and layering, asset purchases, and links with payment gateways and associates. Despite closure or acquittal in earlier FIRs, one FIR remained pending and the investigation indicated a broader laundering network and proceeds of crime. The material supported the requisite belief that money laundering had occurred and justified custodial interrogation; the challenge to the ECIR and arrest was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 18:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=891967" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1380 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467489</link>
      <description>Existence of a live predicate scheduled offence and material supporting a written reason to believe are required for registration of an ECIR and arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Multiple FIRs, investigative material, search statements and seized evidence indicated online betting operations, fund receipt and layering, asset purchases, and links with payment gateways and associates. Despite closure or acquittal in earlier FIRs, one FIR remained pending and the investigation indicated a broader laundering network and proceeds of crime. The material supported the requisite belief that money laundering had occurred and justified custodial interrogation; the challenge to the ECIR and arrest was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>