The JSA partner argues that since Sahara's investors apparently can't be traced, "in all likelihood, the investors do not exist" so money laundering laws should be applied to preserve rule of law. @CourtWitness1 responded to the column on Twitter, arguing that Subrata Roy was in jail for "brazen defiance" of a SC judgment and therefore in contempt of court, irrespective of the original SEBI order against Sahara [Somasekhar Sundaresan in Business Standard]
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
"3. Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering" (emphasis wholly my own)
In Sahara's case, there does not appear to be any 'crime' that has been complained of. There doesn't even appear to be a Complainant as on date.
One would also do well do dwell upon the specific provision under which Subrata Roy has been confined.
This is by no means an attempt to support Subrata Roy - I'm only looking at it from a legal standpoint.
Corruption under the PC Act is a scheduled offence, yes. But but but, there is no specific person charged with corruption here (surely Subrata Roy alone can't be charged with corruption, being a private individual).
But then again, there is no point explaining the PMLA to folks who don't bother reading its provisions first.
"However, Sahara is just unable to demonstrate who the investors are, where they live, and how they have been repaid. In short, it is quite evident to anyone following the case, that in all likelihood, the investors do not exist. Now, that changes not just the shade or complexion of the case, but even the very basic colour of elements involved. If the investors do not exist, it would point to the inference that the tens of thousands of crores of money in the balance sheets and bank accounts of the Sahara companies are from sources that cannot even be demonstrated. If that were true, it would mean that fantastic amounts of cash are converted into bank balances. In the eyes of law, it would be a case of alleged money laundering."
It has been para-phrased (and in quotes!) above as:
"in all likelihood, the investors don't exist so money laundering laws should be applied to preserve rule of law"
Basic paraphrase was not inaccurate though, no, except for lacking some of nuance of original argument?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first