By way of On-line Table
The Best Court docket on Wednesday upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 which relate to the facility of arrest, attachment and seek and seizure conferred at the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Reside Legislation experiences.
The court docket upheld the constitutionality of the powers of ED in relation to arrest, attachment and seek and seizure conferred at the ED.
The court docket rejected the petitoners’ argument that the offence of cash laundering is attracted provided that the valuables is projected as an untained assets.
Consistent with Bar and Bench, the judgment was once pronounced by way of a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar on a batch of 241 petitions difficult the validity of the regulation.
The petitioners had puzzled more than a few sides of the regulation together with the extensive powers given to ED for seek, seizure and attachment, the opposite burden solid on accused to turn out innocence, the admissibility of statements made to ED as proof, the stringent stipulations for grant of bail and the have an effect on of predicate offence and its consequence, on PMLA case.
The Central govt had argued that the offence of cash laundering beneath Phase 3 is a standalone offence as long as there’s a predicate offence regardless of whether or not there’s acquittal or conviction in such predicate offence.
Pertinently it was once additionally argued by way of the federal government that cash laundering beneath Phase 3 is a constant offence, regardless of time at which the predicate offence is integrated within the Time table.
The Best Court docket on Wednesday upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 which relate to the facility of arrest, attachment and seek and seizure conferred at the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Reside Legislation experiences.
The court docket upheld the constitutionality of the powers of ED in relation to arrest, attachment and seek and seizure conferred at the ED.
The court docket rejected the petitoners’ argument that the offence of cash laundering is attracted provided that the valuables is projected as an untained assets.
Consistent with Bar and Bench, the judgment was once pronounced by way of a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar on a batch of 241 petitions difficult the validity of the regulation.
The petitioners had puzzled more than a few sides of the regulation together with the extensive powers given to ED for seek, seizure and attachment, the opposite burden solid on accused to turn out innocence, the admissibility of statements made to ED as proof, the stringent stipulations for grant of bail and the have an effect on of predicate offence and its consequence, on PMLA case.
The Central govt had argued that the offence of cash laundering beneath Phase 3 is a standalone offence as long as there’s a predicate offence regardless of whether or not there’s acquittal or conviction in such predicate offence.
Pertinently it was once additionally argued by way of the federal government that cash laundering beneath Phase 3 is a constant offence, regardless of time at which the predicate offence is integrated within the Time table.