Skip to content

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

Rohit knowingly lets a relative deposit cash that came from a scheduled offence into his bank account and then shows it as income from his consultancy. Under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, what is Rohit's position?

Rohit is guilty of money-laundering. Section 3 punishes anyone who knowingly assists or is involved in a process connected with proceeds of crime, such as projecting them as untainted property. He need not have committed the scheduled offence himself.

  1. AHe is guilty of money-laundering because he knowingly assisted in projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted propertyCorrect
  2. BHe is not guilty because he did not himself commit the scheduled offence
  3. CHe is guilty only if he has a prior conviction for the scheduled offence
  4. DHe is not guilty unless the amount is later confiscated

Explanation

Section 3 covers anyone who knowingly assists, or is a party to, any process connected with proceeds of crime, including projecting them as untainted property. The offence is independent of who committed the scheduled offence. Option B is wrong because involvement in the laundering process is enough.

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