TaxTMI Login
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.
Just a moment...
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.
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: (i) Whether the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable when the alleged criminal activity did not generate any property or benefit capable of constituting proceeds of crime; (ii) Whether the inclusion of the second petitioner as an accused was sustainable in the absence of any allegation that she derived, possessed, or concealed proceeds of crime.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable when the alleged criminal activity did not generate any property or benefit capable of constituting proceeds of crime.
Analysis: Section 2(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires a nexus between criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence and the property said to have been derived or obtained from it. Even assuming the allegations regarding the passport offence and the scheduled offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be true, the alleged conduct did not itself generate any property or illicit gain. The theory that the export-related benefits would have been denied had the true citizenship been disclosed was treated as speculative and insufficient to establish proceeds of crime. In the absence of a demonstrated link between the alleged criminal activity and any property acquired, the machinery of the Act could not be invoked.
Conclusion: The complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not maintainable against the first petitioner and was liable to be quashed.
Issue (ii): Whether the inclusion of the second petitioner as an accused was sustainable in the absence of any allegation that she derived, possessed, or concealed proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The complaint contained no specific allegation showing that the second petitioner had earned, held, or secreted any proceeds of crime arising from the alleged conduct of her husband. Mere joinder as a family member, without any material connecting her to the alleged proceeds of crime, was insufficient to sustain prosecution under the Act.
Conclusion: The inclusion of the second petitioner as an accused was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed for want of the foundational requirement of proceeds of crime and the necessary nexus with the alleged criminal activity, and the criminal proceedings were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, there must be a demonstrable nexus between the scheduled criminal activity and property derived or obtained therefrom; in the absence of such proceeds of crime, prosecution under the Act cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
