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 confirmed provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could survive when some accused persons had been discharged in the PMLA prosecutions and parts of the scheduled offence proceedings had been quashed.
Analysis: The attached properties were assailed on the ground that the predicate offence had been quashed or that the appellants stood discharged in the PMLA cases. The governing principle applied was that money-laundering action cannot continue once the person concerned is finally absolved in the scheduled offence by discharge, acquittal, or quashing. On the facts, however, the record showed that all appellants had not been finally absolved in the scheduled offence. In particular, a principal accused remained chargeable and the scheduled offence proceedings against him were still pending. The Tribunal also noted that PMLA attachment is not confined only to the named accused in the scheduled offence and may continue against a person involved in the proceeds of crime.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment did not fail on the pleaded ground of discharge or quashing, and the appeals were rejected.