https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407340 Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were analysed against Article 20(1) in the context of scheduled offences inserted later into the Schedule. The discussion states that the prosecution and attachment action were not ex post facto because section 3 money laundering is distinct from the predicate offences and the Schedule serves only as a source indicator for proceeds of crime. It also states that money laundering is a stand-alone offence that can continue even if the predicate case is discharged, quashed or ends in acquittal. Confiscation under section 8(5) was treated as a civil consequence, not punitive punishment, so Article 20(1) was not attracted. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 May 2021 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407340 Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were analysed against Article 20(1) in the context of scheduled offences inserted later into the Schedule. The discussion states that the prosecution and attachment action were not ex post facto because section 3 money laundering is distinct from the predicate offences and the Schedule serves only as a source indicator for proceeds of crime. It also states that money laundering is a stand-alone offence that can continue even if the predicate case is discharged, quashed or ends in acquittal. Confiscation under section 8(5) was treated as a civil consequence, not punitive punishment, so Article 20(1) was not attracted. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 14 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407340