Skip to content

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

In a PMLA case, the accused argues that the Special Court cannot proceed on the money-laundering complaint because the court trying the scheduled offence has passed an order favouring him. Trying both sets of offences in one court is also said to be a joint trial. Under the Explanation to section 44(1), which is correct?

The Special Court's jurisdiction under the Act is not dependent on any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and trying both sets of offences in the same court is not to be treated as a joint trial. Both limbs of the accused's argument therefore fail.

  1. AJurisdiction depends on the scheduled offence orders, and the trial is a joint trial
  2. BJurisdiction does not depend on orders in the scheduled offence, and trying both in the same court is not a joint trialCorrect
  3. CJurisdiction depends on orders, but it is not a joint trial
  4. DJurisdiction is independent, but it is a joint trial

Explanation

The Explanation to section 44(1) clarifies that the Special Court's jurisdiction during investigation, enquiry or trial under the Act is not dependent on any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence. It also says trial of both sets of offences by the same court is not a joint trial. The other options get one or both parts 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