TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the prosecution for money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained where the petitioner was not prosecuted for the predicate offence and the attachment proceedings were initiated under the unamended provisions but later confirmed after amendment.
Analysis: The challenge to the attachment order and its confirmation was found unavailing because the petitioner had already availed the statutory appellate remedy under the Act, and no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice was shown in the attachment proceedings. The Court further held that attachment under Section 5 and its confirmation under Section 8 did not render the proceedings unconstitutional merely because the confirmation followed the amendment. On the substantive challenge, the Court held that the offence of money laundering is not dependent on the conclusion of the predicate offence proceedings. The existence of proceeds of crime and involvement in the process or activity connected with such proceeds is sufficient. The absence of prosecution of the petitioner in the predicate offence did not bar action under Section 3 of the Act.
Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held maintainable, and the writ petition was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Money laundering is an independent and stand-alone offence, and prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can proceed on the basis of proceeds of crime even without the accused being prosecuted or convicted for the predicate offence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
