Module: General Practice
Q89: Based on recent Supreme Court judgments (including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Pavana Dibbur), which of the following statements correctly interpret the scope and nature of the offence of Money Laundering under the PMLA, 2002?
The offence of money laundering is a "derivative" crime; therefore, if the Predicate Offence is quashed or the accused is acquitted in the primary case, the PMLA proceedings cannot legally survive.
To prove the offence under Section 3, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused successfully "projected" the illicit money as untainted property; mere possession or concealment is insufficient.
Following the 2013 amendment, there is no monetary threshold for offences listed in Part A of the Schedule; a PMLA case can theoretically be registered for any amount involved in a Scheduled Offence.
The definition of "Proceeds of Crime" covers only the property directly derived from the crime and does not extend to the value of such property held abroad.
To prove the offence under Section 3, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused successfully "projected" the illicit money as untainted property; mere possession or concealment is insufficient.
Following the 2013 amendment, there is no monetary threshold for offences listed in Part A of the Schedule; a PMLA case can theoretically be registered for any amount involved in a Scheduled Offence.
The definition of "Proceeds of Crime" covers only the property directly derived from the crime and does not extend to the value of such property held abroad.
✅ Correct Answer: A
The correct answer is Option A. PMLA is a derivative crime; acquittal in the predicate offence kills the PMLA case.
There is no monetary threshold.
Mere possession is sufficient (Section 3), making statement 2 incorrect.
Case law is vital for the IIBF AML KYC Exam 2026.
There is no monetary threshold.
Mere possession is sufficient (Section 3), making statement 2 incorrect.
Case law is vital for the IIBF AML KYC Exam 2026.