Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering 2021 2021 2021 (2) Money Laundering - 2021 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Money Laundering - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 21 of 21 Records

• 2021 (2) TMI 85 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Smuggling - Money Laundering - siphoning of funds - predicate offence - proceeds of crime - argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the predicate offence has not been identified and that the prosecution initially started with the proceeds of crime as that from the act of smuggling has later gone to 'kickbacks' in LIFE Mission project - HELD THAT:- This Court had the opportunity to consider the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant and it was held that the materials suggested the complicity of the applicant and that the prosecution has to get opportunity to delve further into the allegations in the light of the statements recorded. The applicant was confronted with the statements of the co-accused in this case pertaining to his involvement and he has not been able to give a satisfactory explanation regarding the variance between his version and the versions of the other witnesses as an accused. The applicant could not give a satisfactory explanation regarding why he was anxious to introduce the 2nd accused to the witness Venugopal to facilitate parking of her money in a locker. A2 has given statements to the effect that the applicant was aware of the deposits and withdrawals from the locker. It is true that the prosecution may not have been able to establish with precision how the proceeds of crime was generated. But indications about the applicant having knowledge of the smuggling activities in which A2 was involved suggests that he also had a share in the proceeds of crime. The term "proceeds of crime" is wide enough to include proceeds which have been directly or indirectly obtained as a result of criminal activities mentioned as scheduled offences.

  Reverting to the rigour of the twin test under section 45 of the PMLA, it has to be considered whether the applicant would qualify to get bail. There is no doubt about the complicity of the applicant and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty. However, it should also be considered whether there is a likelihood of the applicant committing any offence while on bail. I am afraid that the prosecution has not been able to establish this fact. Going by the allegations made by the ED, the applicant was indulged in laundering of ₹ 64 lakhs which was seized from the SBI locker. There is no indication that the applicant had anything to do with the locker belonging to A2 in Federal Bank. Thus the proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA would operate in view of the fact that the money allegedly laundered is less than rupees one crore. The fact that the applicant is suffering from various illness would also come to his benefit as the proviso to Section 45 exempts a sick person from the rigours of the Section - The accused may not be detained just to give him a taste of imprisonment is what the Supreme Court held.

  The applicant has been in custody since 28/10/2020. He has been subjected to interrogation including custodial interrogation in a number of times. The present pandemic times also does not encourage incarceration of an accused indefinitely. There are no rationale for continuing the applicant's judicial custody as an undertrial in this case The applicant is therefore, entitled to be released on regular bail on stringent conditions.

  The bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for ₹ 5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, and on further conditions imposed.

  ---

12