The Burden of Proof Under Section 24 PMLA: Presumption Is Not a Substitute for Foundation

Section 24 PMLA alters the ordinary evidentiary position by creating a statutory presumption concerning proceeds of crime. Its operation must be understood with the prosecution’s continuing duty to establish foundational facts.

Foundational requirements

The prosecution must identify property alleged to be proceeds of crime, the scheduled criminal activity from which it was derived or obtained, and the accused’s alleged involvement under Section 3. The presumption cannot manufacture proceeds where the statutory connection is absent.

Once the provision is properly engaged, the burden described by Section 24 affects how the court evaluates the accused’s explanation and evidence. The precise operation differs between a person charged with money laundering and another person involved in the relevant proceeding, as the text provides.

Nature of rebuttal

Rebuttal may arise from banking records, accounts, tax materials, contracts, valuation evidence, timing of acquisition and credible alternative sources. The court evaluates the whole record; an explanation is not accepted merely because it is asserted, and prosecution allegations are not proven merely because they are serious.

Evidence-law transition

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 applies from 1 July 2024 subject to savings. Section 24 PMLA is a special statutory rule and continues to operate, but the general law governing proof and admissibility depends on the applicable proceeding.

Sources

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 2, 3 and 24: https://dor.gov.in/prevention-money-laundering

Supreme Court of India, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/3989/3989_2014_4_1501_36874_Judgement_27-Jul-2022.pdf

#PMLA #BurdenOfProof #Evidence