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: Whether the discharge applications were liable to be allowed on the grounds that the alleged predicate offences were not scheduled offences at the relevant time, the monetary threshold under the money-laundering regime was not satisfied, and Rule 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 was applicable to the prosecution.
Analysis: The offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence concerned with any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted property, or claiming as untainted property. The timing of the predicate offence does not by itself defeat prosecution if proceeds of crime are dealt with after the relevant offence is notified as scheduled. The statutory threshold for value applies only to offences placed in Part B of the Schedule and not to the offences relied upon in the present case. Rule 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 regulates record-keeping by reporting entities and has no bearing on the question whether an accused is to be tried for an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Conclusion: The discharge applications were rightly rejected and no interference was called for in revisional jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
