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 proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 are independent of the predicate offence and may proceed without awaiting the result of the scheduled offence; (ii) Whether the prosecution proved, on admissible evidence, the existence of proceeds of crime and the ingredients necessary to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 are independent of the predicate offence and may proceed without awaiting the result of the scheduled offence.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats money-laundering as an independent and sui generis offence. The existence of a scheduled offence is a foundational requirement, but the prosecution under the Act is not dependent on the completion of the predicate trial. The prosecution must still establish, independently, that the accused derived or dealt with proceeds of crime and projected them as untainted property. The outcome of the predicate case may have a bearing, but pendency of that case by itself does not invalidate the proceeding under the Act.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved, on admissible evidence, the existence of proceeds of crime and the ingredients necessary to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The complainant failed to marshal reliable material proving the generation of proceeds of crime and their linkage to the alleged property. The court found that the case rested largely on presumption rather than proof. The evidentiary deficiencies regarding the bank statements and the absence of proper proof connecting the property with the alleged criminal proceeds were material. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or legally untenable, and no such infirmity was made out.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was left undisturbed because the prosecution failed to prove the essential nexus between the scheduled offence and the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime, despite the independent character of proceedings under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for money-laundering must independently prove the existence and laundering of proceeds of crime, and an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or otherwise legally unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
