2024 (5) TMI 938 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - petitioner once again came back to section 2(u) of the PMLA Act to submit that forcible possession of landed property is not the proceeds of crime, no predicate offence and no definite conclusion is here - HELD THAT - The learned senior counsel for the petitioner concluded his arguments, and the judgment was reserved for further deliberation.

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of section 2(u) of the PMLA Act regarding forcible possession of landed property as proceeds of crime, absence of predicate offence alleged against the petitioner, and sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt under the PMLA Act.

Interpretation of section 2(u) of the PMLA Act: The Additional Solicitor General of India referred to witness statements under section 50 of the PMLA Act and legal precedents during arguments. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kapil Sibal, emphasized that forcible possession of landed property does not qualify as proceeds of crime under section 2(u) of the PMLA Act. He argued that no predicate offence was alleged against the petitioner and contended that based on the case presented by the Enforcement Directorate, it is unreasonable to conclude the petitioner's guilt under the PMLA Act.

Conclusion: The learned senior counsel for the petitioner concluded his arguments, and the judgment was reserved for further deliberation.