<?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>Prima facie discharge review under PMLA sustained where trial court considered material and found no basis for revisional interference.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98917</link>
    <description>At the discharge stage in a PMLA prosecution, the trial court is required only to sift the material to see whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a roving inquiry into the merits. The court&#039;s order was upheld because it had considered the FIR in the predicate offence, the ECIR, the accused&#039;s Section 50 statement, property documents and the evaluation report, and had noted compliance with the prescribed procedure. Reading the order as a whole, there was no non-application of mind or perversity warranting revisional interference. The question whether the assets constitute proceeds of crime was left open for trial, so the refusal to discharge was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:46:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:46:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Prima facie discharge review under PMLA sustained where trial court considered material and found no basis for revisional interference.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98917</link>
      <description>At the discharge stage in a PMLA prosecution, the trial court is required only to sift the material to see whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a roving inquiry into the merits. The court&#039;s order was upheld because it had considered the FIR in the predicate offence, the ECIR, the accused&#039;s Section 50 statement, property documents and the evaluation report, and had noted compliance with the prescribed procedure. Reading the order as a whole, there was no non-application of mind or perversity warranting revisional interference. The question whether the assets constitute proceeds of crime was left open for trial, so the refusal to discharge was sustained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:46:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>