Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Court quashes money laundering case due to seized funds not becoming proceeds of crime. The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) after finding that the prosecution under the Prevention of Money ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court quashes money laundering case due to seized funds not becoming proceeds of crime.
The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) after finding that the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was misconceived. The court held that since the money seized by the CBI did not become proceeds of a crime as it was seized before being projected as untainted, the application of the PML Act was not justified. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
Issues: 1. Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2).
Analysis: The writ petition sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. The case involved allegations of bribery where Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 to Andasu Ravinder (A1) for certain benefits. The CBI seized the money during the investigation, leading to the registration of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) by the Enforcement Directorate. The complaint filed under the PML Act implicated Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) and others. The key contention was whether the prosecution of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) under the PML Act was justified.
The court considered the facts presented, emphasizing that the sum of Rs. 50,00,000 became the proceeds of a crime only when Andasu Ravinder (A1) accepted it as a bribe. It was noted that the money seized by the CBI from the car outside Andasu Ravinder's house was a corpus delicti in the CBI case. The court highlighted that for the PML Act to apply, the accused must have projected the proceeds of a crime as untainted money. Since Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) did not mobilize the money through criminal activity, and the CBI seized it before it could be projected as untainted, the prosecution under the PML Act was deemed misconceived.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2018 against Padmanabhan Kishore (A2)/petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
