Skip to content

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

Three linked transactions of Gupta Exports are alleged to be money-laundering. One of them is proved to be involved in money-laundering. For adjudication or confiscation under section 8, what does Section 23 provide about the remaining two?

Under Section 23, the remaining transactions are presumed to form part of the inter-connected transactions once one or more are proved to be money-laundering. The presumption is rebuttable, as the person can prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or Special Court.

  1. AThey are presumed to form part of the inter-connected transactions, unless proved otherwise to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or Special CourtCorrect
  2. BThey are conclusively held to be legitimate
  3. CThey must each be proved independently with no presumption
  4. DThey are automatically confiscated without any hearing

Explanation

Section 23 creates a rebuttable presumption: where one or more inter-connected transactions are proved to be involved in money-laundering, the rest are presumed to form part of them unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court. It is not conclusive and does not dispense with a hearing.

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