Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where the alleged value involved was below the statutory threshold for a scheduled offence.
Analysis: The application turned on the statutory definition of a scheduled offence under Section 2(y)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. On the material before the Court, the alleged value involved was Rs. 7,30,620/-, which was far below the threshold then applicable for a Part B scheduled offence. The Court held that in the absence of a qualifying scheduled offence, the generation of proceeds of crime and, consequently, the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be made out on the asserted facts. The applicant's age, lack of other criminal involvement, grant of bail in the scheduled offence, and grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused also weighed in favour of relief.
Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail and the application was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged value involved in the predicate offence falls below the statutory threshold for a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a prosecution for money laundering cannot be sustained on that basis, and anticipatory bail may be granted on the facts of the case.