TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Money laundering charges upheld despite petitioner not named in predicate offence FIR or documents</h1> <h3>D. Suresh Raon Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India</h3> D. Suresh Raon Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India - TMI Issues involved:The judgment involves the quashing of criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The main issues include the interpretation of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, the connection between scheduled offences and money laundering, the admissibility of statements obtained under coercion, and the ownership of properties acquired with alleged proceeds of crime.Interpretation of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:The Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 3 of the 2002 Act establishes that money laundering is an independent offence related to activities involving proceeds of crime. The Court clarified that any process connected with the proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, or use, constitutes money laundering. The offence can be committed even if the criminal activity occurred before the scheduled offence was recognized. The Court emphasized that the authorities cannot prosecute based on assumptions and must establish a link between the property and the scheduled offence.Admissibility of Petitioner's Statements and Involvement:The petitioner's involvement in money laundering was contested based on the absence of specific allegations in the FIR against him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's statements and actions, such as receiving substantial amounts from the accused, indicated his connection to the proceeds of crime. The petitioner's claim of coercion in providing statements was deferred for trial court consideration, and the petitioner's involvement was upheld based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 3.Ownership of Properties and Alleged Proceeds of Crime:The petitioner's acquisition of properties, including a flat purchased with substantial cash, raised suspicions of utilizing proceeds of crime. Despite attempts to distance himself from the transactions, the petitioner's admission of receiving and transferring significant sums linked him to the alleged money laundering activities. The Court rejected the petitioner's explanations regarding property ownership and payment considerations, reinforcing the notion that the proceeds of crime were potentially involved in the property transactions.Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:The Court examined the circumstances under which a complaint could be quashed, as outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Finding no grounds for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, the Court dismissed the petition and allowed the trial court to proceed independently. The judgment emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case for money laundering based on the interpretation of the 2002 Act, indicating that the petitioner's involvement warranted further trial proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
