Back
V. G. ARUN
A. Dharmaraj Rasalam – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
ORDER
The petitioner is the Bishop and Moderator of the Church of South India (CSI). He is also the Chairman of all educational institutions under the South Kerala Diocese, including the Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College. In 2019, parents of aspiring medical students filed criminal complaints, alleging that large sums of money was collected from them, by promising admissions to MBBS and PG courses in the Medical College. After collecting the amounts, neither was the promised admissions provided nor the amounts refunded. The Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala enquired into the allegations and recommended the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure refund of the amounts collected from the complainants. Acting on the recommendation, the Government ordered Crime Branch investigation into the FIRs registered at the Vellarada Police Station based on the complaints submitted by the deceived parents. Thereupon, the Crime Branch registered multiple cases under various penal provisions, including Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC, against the petitioner and others. While the Crime Branch investigation was in progress, the Enforcement Directorate/1
Predicate offence – A person not involved in original criminal activity that had resulted in generation of proceeds of crime can be prosecuted under PMLA if he is found to have been involved in conce....
Money laundering under PMLA is a stand-alone offence, and non-inclusion in final reports does not exonerate an individual from prosecution if involved in proceeds of crime.
Money laundering is a standalone offence under PMLA, independent of scheduled offences; involvement in proceeds of crime can lead to prosecution even if not charged with the underlying crime.
Money laundering proceedings can continue even if the predicate offence is quashed against one accused, as long as allegations and requisite material exist against others involved.
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are independent and can be based on continuing laundering activities, regardless of the scheduled offence's date of commission.
The court affirmed that directors can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act independently of the company's involvement in the complaint, establishing the principle of distinct li....
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the commission of a scheduled offence as a prerequisite; without it, no offence of money laundering can be established.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that if an accused is acquitted in a predicate offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against them, and the proceedings initiated ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
