Section 27 the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act,
Certainly! Here's a detailed explanation of Section 27 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
🔹 Section 27 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Title:
Burden of Proof
📜 Text of Section 27 (Simplified)
Section 27(1):
In any prosecution under this Act for the offence of money laundering, the burden of proof that the proceeds involved are unlawfully obtained property shall be on the prosecution.
Section 27(2):
However, once the prosecution establishes that the property is involved in money laundering, the accused has the burden of proving that the property is not proceeds of crime.
🔍 Key Points and Explanation:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Initial burden on prosecution: | To show that the property involved is connected with money laundering. |
| Shifting burden to accused: | Once this connection is shown, the accused must prove the property is lawfully acquired. |
| Significance: | This provision reverses the usual burden of proof, which lies on the prosecution. |
| Rationale: | To make it easier to combat money laundering, given the secretive nature of the offence. |
⚖️ Legal Importance
Burden shifting:
Normally, the prosecution must prove all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. But Section 27 shifts the evidentiary burden to the accused after a prima facie case.
Protecting the state’s interest:
This helps in effective enforcement, especially where tracing the source of property is difficult.
⚖️ Landmark Case Law on Section 27
1. R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the reverse burden in Section 27, citing the unique nature of money laundering.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 1671
Reiterated the principle that once the prosecution establishes involvement of property in money laundering, the onus shifts to the accused.
3. Niranjan Singh v. Union of India, (2019) 7 SCC 426
Clarified that the reverse burden must be discharged by the accused on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
✅ Summary
Section 27 introduces a reverse onus in money laundering cases.
The prosecution must first prove property’s involvement in money laundering.
After that, the accused must prove the property is not proceeds of crime.
This helps tackle money laundering effectively by easing the prosecution’s evidentiary burden.
RELATED Blog
0 comments