Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA
K.C. Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Rep.by the Assistant Diector, (The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Government of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of allegations and facts of case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the revision petitioners (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis and legal observations on evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. presumption of proceeds of crime and legal standards (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Heard both sides.
2. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai registered ECIR No.12 of 2015 against the revision petitioners herein. Later, the said authority filed complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the file of the Special Court constituted under Section 43 (1) of the Act against the revision petitioners herein for having committed the offence of money laundering. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaint in C.C No.11 of 2018.
3. The case of the complainant is as follows :
M/s.Deepa Impex India Private Limited was granted lease to quarry minor minerals in Melur in the year 1989. K.C.Chandran and his wife C.Chandra are directors of the said company. They entered into criminal conspiracy and illegally quarried granite stones from the nearby lands and non-lease patta lands and transported more minerals than permit obtai
The involvement in actions related to proceeds of crime constitutes money laundering, emphasizing that the presumption applies even without clear identification of funds.
Prima facie evidence under the PMLA was deemed sufficient to proceed with prosecution despite discharge petitions, emphasizing limited scrutiny during such petitions.
The trial court properly assessed the evidence and ruled that prima facie grounds existed to proceed under PMLA, upholding the dismissal of the discharge petition.
Discharge denied in PMLA case as scheduled offences pending via protest petitions/remand; prima facie case from money trail suffices at discharge without mini-trial; beneficial ownership extends liab....
The offence under Sec. 3 of the PML Act is a stand-alone offence, and the finality of the adjudication proceedings and the discharge of the accused by the trial Court can impact the continuation of c....
Possession of properties linked to proceeds of crime creates a presumption of money-laundering, placing the burden of proof on the accused to establish the legitimacy of such assets.
PMLA process quashed for absence of nexus between pre-scheduled offence property acquisition (2005-2007) and subsequently generated proceeds of crime (2020-2021); no prima facie material of accused i....
Possession of proceeds of crime infers necessary knowledge for prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, regardless of whether the individual is charged in underlying predicate offenc....
The court upheld the necessity of trial for charges framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that prima facie evidence supports the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent acti....
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
