Skip to content

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

Under Section 24 of the PMLA, 2002, in a proceeding relating to proceeds of crime, how does the burden of proof operate for a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3?

For a person charged under section 3, the Authority or Court must presume that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering unless the contrary is proved. Only for any other person is the presumption discretionary, using the word may.

  1. AThe Authority or Court shall presume the proceeds are involved in money-laundering unless the contrary is provedCorrect
  2. BThe Authority or Court may presume the proceeds are involved, at its discretion
  3. CThe prosecution must prove every element before any presumption arises
  4. DNo presumption applies to a charged person

Explanation

Section 24(a) provides that for a person charged under section 3, the Authority or Court shall presume the proceeds are involved in money-laundering unless the contrary is proved. The discretionary 'may' presumption in clause (b) applies to any other person, which is why the second option is wrong.

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