Skip to content

CMA Final · Cost and Management Audit · Anti-Money Laundering

Under Section 23 of the PMLA, where money-laundering involves two or more inter-connected transactions and one or more of them is proved to be involved in money-laundering, what is the legal presumption?

Section 23 presumes that the remaining transactions form part of the inter-connected transactions once one or more are proved to involve money-laundering. The presumption applies unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or Special Court, so it is rebuttable, not conclusive.

  1. AThe remaining transactions are presumed to be unrelated and must be separately proved
  2. BThe remaining transactions are presumed to form part of the inter-connected transactions, unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or Special CourtCorrect
  3. CAll the transactions are conclusively treated as proceeds of crime with no rebuttal permitted
  4. DOnly transactions occurring on the same date are presumed to be connected

Explanation

Section 23 presumes that the remaining transactions form part of the inter-connected transactions, but the presumption can be rebutted by proof to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or Special Court. It is not conclusive, and no same-date test exists.

Did you get it right without looking?

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

Practise Anti-Money LaunderingFree diagnostic mock

More Anti-Money Laundering questions