Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 62] [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section

Section 23 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002

23. Presumption in inter-connected transactions..

- Where money-laundering involves two or more inter-connected transactions and one or more such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering, then for the purposes of adjudication or confiscation [under section 8 or for the trial of the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court] [Substituted for the words "under section 8, it shall, unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority" by Act No. 2 OF 2013], be presumed that the remaining transactions form part of such inter-connected transactions.[24. Burden of proof.- In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act,-
(a)in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and
(b)in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering.]
[Substituted by Act No. 2 OF 2013]
Prior to substitution the Section read as;24. Burden of proof.When a person is accused of having committed the offence under section 3, the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused.