Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  •  A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari made the observations that an individual who was acquitted of the scheduled offence cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
  • This statement was concluded after hearing the plea of from a deputy revenue officer, his wife and their son moved the court, seeking to be discharged in a case filed against them by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
  • He was quitted by the special judge due to lack of sufficient evidence to hold him guilty.
  • The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property because of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
  • The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed.
  • During the pendency of the trial, the central agency registered a complaint under Section 3 of the Act before a special court.
  • During the course of the case, one of the accused died. Thus the trail court discharged the other because proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot continue in the absence of a scheduled offence.
  • the Enforcement Directorate moved the Karnataka High Court against the trial court order. The High Court allowed the agency’s revision plea and set aside the discharge judgement.
  • Justice Maheshwari was part of a three-judge bench that in July upheld the core amendments of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
  • The bench highlighted that if the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction there can be no offence of money laundering against him or anyone claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
  • A notional basis for accusation cannot be upheld under the 2002 Act.
  • The judges also said that the Karnataka High Court’s decision to set aside the trial court order was “not right”
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  77  Report



Comments
img