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 properties acquired before or during the alleged crime period could be attached as property of equivalent value of proceeds of crime, and whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving their lawful source.
Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime encompasses not only tainted property derived from scheduled criminal activity but also property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds are unavailable or untraceable. Consequently, even properties acquired before the crime period, including gifted or ancestral assets, may be attached as equivalent value. The appellant did not dispute the allegations concerning his involvement or the quantified proceeds attributed to him. The explanations concerning loans, gifts, cash deposits, bank withdrawals, property purchases and construction expenditure did not establish lawful sources or explain repayment of loans and utilisation of funds. The statutory burden under Section 24 remained undischarged.
Conclusion: Attachment of the identified properties as equivalent value of proceeds of crime was sustainable, and the appellant failed to prove lawful sources for the assets and transactions in question.