Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
D. Rajasekar – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Represented by its Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of order in Crl.MP.No.4022/2021 in C.C.No.58/2018, dated 10.06.2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, set-aside the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
Under assail is the Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.MP.No.4022/2021 in C.C.No.58/2018.
2. Petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., has been instituted before the Sessions Court at Chennai in C.C.No.58/2018 seeking relief to discharge the petitioners/Accused from the offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA').
3. The Sessions Court rejected the petition, which resulted in institution of the present criminal revision petition.
4. Mr.M.Muruganantham, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the predicate offence allegedly committed by the petitioners was under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They were prosecuted for the offence for possessing disproportio
The court established that possession of proceeds of crime is sufficient for PMLA action, and the Act's provisions are independent and overriding over other laws.
The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is a continuing offence, applicable irrespective of when the predicate offence occurred, and requires thorough judicial scrutiny.
The offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which has nothing ....
The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is a standalone, continuing offence, not dependent on the outcome of related scheduled offences, with a reverse burden of proof on the accused regarding....
The PMLA's application is concerned with the ongoing nature of financial misconduct, allowing proceedings even for actions predating its enforcement, where evidence showcases potential 'proceeds of c....
The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent of any pending trial for the predicate offence, as affirmed by the court.
The PMLA's constitutional validity was upheld, and the court clarified the distinct nature of offences under ULA(P) Act and the PMLA, rejecting the claim of double jeopardy.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
The court affirmed that under the PMLA, indirect involvement in money laundering suffices for prosecution, and the burden of proof rests on the accused to prove their innocence.
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
