Skip to content

CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · Prevention of Money Laundering

Arjun's firm carried out three inter-connected transactions. One is proved to be involved in money-laundering. At the trial of the offence, what is the position regarding the remaining two transactions under Section 23?

The remaining transactions are presumed to form part of the inter-connected transactions unless the accused proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the Special Court. The presumption is rebuttable, and it applies for adjudication or confiscation under section 8 as well as for trial of the offence.

  1. AThey are presumed to form part of the inter-connected transactions unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Special CourtCorrect
  2. BThey are conclusively held to be money-laundering and cannot be rebutted
  3. CThey are ignored unless separately proved by the prosecution
  4. DThey are presumed legitimate until the Director attaches them

Explanation

Section 23 provides that where one or more inter-connected transactions are proved to be involved in money-laundering, the remaining ones shall, unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or Special Court, be presumed to form part of them. The presumption is rebuttable, so the conclusive option is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Prevention of Money Laundering shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Prevention of Money LaunderingFree diagnostic mock

More Prevention of Money Laundering questions