TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that she was only a shareholder and not an accused in the predicate offence; (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of money laundering against the petitioner so as to justify continuation of the trial.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that she was only a shareholder and not an accused in the predicate offence.
Analysis: The scope of prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not confined to the person arraigned in the scheduled offence. A person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, knowingly assists, or is knowingly a party to any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime can be proceeded against. The fact that the petitioner was not named in the predicate FIR or charge-sheet did not, by itself, entitle her to discharge where the complaint and materials indicated her connection with the companies through which the proceeds moved. The statutory scheme under Section 70 also permits liability where the material shows involvement in relation to the company, and the burden under the proviso remains on the person prosecuted to show absence of knowledge.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge merely because she was not an accused in the scheduled offence.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of money laundering against the petitioner so as to justify continuation of the trial.
Analysis: The complaint referred to the loan transactions, the routing of funds through connected entities, and the transfer of shareholding and beneficial interest, and treated the petitioner as an ultimate beneficiary with control over relevant corporate entities. At the stage of discharge, the Court found sufficient material to proceed, and held that the presumptions under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the allegations of involvement in placement, layering, and integration of proceeds of crime made the matter fit for trial. The Court also held that the contention based on mere status as shareholder could not override the material indicating possible participation in the laundering process.
Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient prima facie material to proceed to trial against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected, and the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was directed to continue uninfluenced by the impugned observations.
Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering prosecution, discharge cannot be granted merely because the accused was not arraigned in the scheduled offence or claims to be only a shareholder, if the complaint discloses prima facie material of indirect involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
