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, for the appellant accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the requirements of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA Act are satisfied so as to grant bail pending disposal of the complaint.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires existence of "proceeds of crime" as defined in Section 2(u) and its connection to scheduled offences for an offence under Section 3 to be made out. On prima facie consideration of the material in the complaint, there is no statement or material indicating that the appellant's assets or alleged unaccounted money were derived from or linked to the predicate (scheduled) offences. The absence of a prima facie link between the appellant's assets and the predicate offences means the condition precedent for money-laundering under Section 3 is not satisfied against the appellant at this stage. Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 permits bail where such satisfaction is lacking on the record; hence bail is appropriate pending final disposal. The Special Court may impose appropriate terms and the Enforcement Directorate shall be heard before finalizing conditions.
Conclusion: Prayer for bail under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is allowed in favour of the appellant; the appellant shall be enlarged on bail pending disposal of the complaint subject to terms to be fixed by the Special Court after hearing the Enforcement Directorate.