<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>MERE POSSESSION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13032</link>
    <description>The Prevention of Money Laundering Act treats proceeds of crime as property derived directly or indirectly from scheduled offences, and Section 3 penalises those who knowingly assist in or engage with such proceeds, including possession, acquisition, use or concealment. Where documentary and testimonial materials show trustees diverting member funds, collecting undocumented cash receipts, and enjoying assets traced to the trust, mere possession and enjoyment can constitute a sufficient nexus for PMLA invocation; the statutory burden of proof then shifts to the accused to rebut the allegations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:41:54 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:41:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>MERE POSSESSION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13032</link>
      <description>The Prevention of Money Laundering Act treats proceeds of crime as property derived directly or indirectly from scheduled offences, and Section 3 penalises those who knowingly assist in or engage with such proceeds, including possession, acquisition, use or concealment. Where documentary and testimonial materials show trustees diverting member funds, collecting undocumented cash receipts, and enjoying assets traced to the trust, mere possession and enjoyment can constitute a sufficient nexus for PMLA invocation; the statutory burden of proof then shifts to the accused to rebut the allegations.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Other Topics</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:41:54 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>