Burden of Proof under Section 24 of PMLA

PMLA is a special Act which provides for reverse burden of proof. A person who is in possession of proceeds of crime involved in money laundering has to prove that the property has been acquired out of licit means. In the case of Sarosh Munir Khan Vs.The Deputy Director, [534/MUM/2013], it was held as under: An order confirming the provisional attachment can be passed only on the adjudicating authority being satisfied, on considering the material on record including material or evidence furnished in response to the notice issued under Section 8(1), the reply furnished in response thereto, and taking all and other relevant material into consideration, to record a finding that the property or so much of it, is involved in money-laundering. Further, in the case of B. Rama Raju, S/o B. Ramalinga Raju Vs. Union of India (UOI), [MANU/TN/1696/2011]; [(2012)1MLJ419], it was held that: 123. Section 24 shifts the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property onto person(s) accused of having committed the offence under Section 3. 126. In response to a notice issued under Section 8(1) and qua the legislative prescription in Section 24 of the Act the person accused of having committed the offence under Section 3 must show with supporting evidence and material that he has the requisite means by way of income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property alleged to be proceeds of crime. Only on such showing would the accused be able to rebut the statutorily enjoined presumption that the alleged proceeds of crime are untainted property.
Connect With Us Social Media