Meharban was involved in developing an online betting app. He was also actively involved in other activities like online cricket betting and gambling activities, in relation to which he committed acts which constitutes m

CS Professional · Resolution of Corporate Disputes, Non-Compliances & Remedies · PYQS · June 2024
Meharban was involved in developing an online betting app. He was also actively involved in other activities like online cricket betting and gambling activities, in relation to which he committed acts which constitutes money-laundering. Rafi, his close aid and confidante worked closely with Meharban and was aware that the funds he used for the purposes of betting was not legal. Rafi had a fight with Meharban on some trivial issue, for which he was so angry, that he went and informed about his activities by way of anonymous letters to various regulators. Upon receipt of information, the Directors authorised under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 went to conduct search and seizure procedure in Meharban's premises, under the Act. Meharban contended that the Directors authorised, did not have the jurisdiction to conduct search. Is Meharban's contention justified ?

Answer & Explanation:

Section 17 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002(PMLA, 2002) provides the provisions relating to Search and seizure. It states that: (1) Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section, on the basis of information in his possession, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person- (i) has committed any act which constitutes money-laundering, or (ii) is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering, or (iii) is in possession of any records relating to money-laundering, or (iv) is in possession of any property related to crime, then, subject to the rules made in this behalf, he may authorise any officer subordinate to him to- (a) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of crime are kept; (b) break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (a) where the keys thereof are not available; (c) seize any record or property found as a result of such search; (d) place marks of identification on such record or property, if required or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (e) make a note or an inventory of such record or property; (f) examine on oath any person, who is found to be in possession or control of any record or property, in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation under this Act. In view of the above, it can be said that the contention of Meharban is not justified, since the search and seizure at his premises was conducted by Directors duly authorized under Sec 17 of the PMLA, 2002.

Topics: Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic