Back to questions
MAY 2023Final

Ramesh has 3 sons, Mahesh, Naresh, and Suresh. The eldest son, Mahesh, runs a Rice Mill taken over from his father Ramesh, as a family business. Suresh, the third son of Ramesh, always feels ignored by his family and looking for some fast easy money, joins hands with Himesh, a real estate agent, who promises to pay Suresh, a commission in cash, if he helps Himesh to buy 45 acres of land and hold the land in his name on behalf of one of his customers, Sonu, in good trust and in good faith. Suresh agrees and a purchase agreement for 45 Acres of land was registered in the name of Suresh. Subsequently, Suresh entered into several similar agreements in his name on behalf of others. In due course of time, Suresh also formed a company, called Ramesh Suresh Private Limited (RSPL), with the objects of running a hotel business, but the source of funding for the business was through secret drug peddling / dealings. RSPL was involved in the following activities: (A) RSPL accepted illegal monies by cash as legitimate business transactions supported with fake income and receipts. (B) The monies were then deposited into the bank accounts of RSPL as clean money. (C) Suresh also kept fraudulent records, which did not demonstrate the current state of affairs of his business. (D) Monies in the bank accounts of RSPL were also often transferred as legitimate business transactions, to the bank accounts of GG Private Limited (GGPL), which is also in a similar business like RSPL. Original source of money was, thus, disguised. (E) RSPL also mobilized funds from various investors but were never utilized for the purpose for which they were collected. (F) Suresh also created a complex structure of group companies, subsidiaries, and associate companies, which were mainly paper /shell companies. (G) RSPL also took loans from various banks and financial institutions. The funds were diverted and transferred to bank accounts of group companies, from where they were systematically siphoned off and were used for the purchase of various properties in India and abroad. Suresh led a lavish lifestyle. He also utilized the illegal cash for lavish stays in various hotels and entertained himself in night clubs in India and abroad. Suresh also held some properties in the name of his wife, Rama, which was bought from his known legal sources i.e. from his share of income from the Rice Mill. Kamal, a friend of Naresh, is the Company Secretary of a listed public limited company, called KKC Limited. Kamal gave a loan of ₹ 7 lakh to Naresh, who in turn, gave the said amount to his other friend, Manu, for investment in the shares of KKC Limited. Manu traded in shares of KKC Limited on behalf of Kamal. Kamal also ensured that some money is passed on to various legitimate companies to buy the shares of KKC Limited, in order to inflate the price of the shares. The intention was to show a higher valuation of shares before proposing to the investors. Ketan, is the brother-in-law of Mahesh, who is employed in UAE and is a non- resident Indian. Ketan purchased some properties in Mumbai in the name of his wife for ₹91 lakh. He paid ₹61 lakh through his NRE Account, ₹3 lakh through direct transfer from his salary account in UAE to the seller's account as advance through normal banking channels, complying with all the procedural requirements, but balance ₹ 27 lakh payment was made through some unknown sources. Ketan also invested in equity shares of various listed companies in India in the name of his wife Jaya, who is a resident in India and himself, as joint holders, from an account that is not disclosed to tax authorities in India. Ketan also purchased a flat in Mumbai in the name of Jaya and himself, as joint holders, from his NRE Account. Mahesh has a married daughter, Tina, who is a UK resident. Mahesh invested ₹1.80 crore in a bank fixed deposit in the name of Tina, without her knowledge. Later, during the course of inquiries by tax officials, Tina denied ownership of the said bank fixed deposit made in her name. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted raid operations against Suresh and his associates after his office obtained some inputs on the purported dubious financial transactions. ED seized incriminating documents, emails, and whatsapp chats during the raid.

Sub-questions (8)

question_5.12 MarksMCQ

As per the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), 1988, the purchase of properties by Ketan in the name of his wife in Mumbai for ₹91 lakh:

A

(A) Can be considered as a valid transaction for ₹91 lakh.

B

(B) Can be considered as a valid transaction to the extent of ₹61 lakhs only.

C

(C) Can be considered as a Benami transaction under the relevant law to an extent of ₹91 lakh.

D

(D) Can be considered as Benami transaction under the relevant law to an extent of ₹27 lakh.

question_5.22 MarksMCQ

Which one of the following transaction if undertaken by Suresh can be considered valid and lawful as per the provisions of the PBPT Act, 1988?

A

(A) Transaction in respect of a property where the person providing the consideration to Suresh is not traceable.

B

(B) An arrangement by Suresh in respect of a property made in a fictitious name.

C

(C) Property held by Suresh in the name of his spouse and consideration paid out of known legal sources.

D

(D) A transaction by Suresh in respect of a property where the owner is unaware of or denies knowledge of the ownership.

question_5.32 MarksMCQ

As per the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, share trading by Manu on behalf of Kamal:

A

(A) Is a valid transaction, since he is not at all connected with KKC Limited.

B

(B) Can be considered as an unlawful transaction as trading is indirectly done in the stock market by Kamal, the Company Secretary, who has insider price- sensitive information.

C

(C) Cannot be considered as an unlawful or an invalid transaction as per relevant provisions.

D

(D) Is a valid transaction, if Naresh does share trading on behalf of Kamal, out of the loan of ₹ 7 lakh given by Kamal.

question_5.42 MarksMCQ

RSPL also took loans from various banks and financial institutions. The funds were diverted and transferred to bank accounts of group companies, from where they were systematically siphoned off and were used for the purchase of various properties in India and abroad. RSPL claimed such proceeds of crime to be untainted property. Which one among the following statements is correct as per the provisions of the PMLA, 2002?

A

(A) Such offences are non-cognizable.

B

(B) Such offences are always bailable.

C

(C) Such offences are cognizable and always non-bailable.

D

(D) Such offences are cognizable and non-bailable but a person can be bailed subject to certain conditions.

question_5.52 MarksMCQ

Monies in the bank accounts of RSPL were also often transferred as legitimate business transactions, to the bank accounts of GGPL, which is also in a similar business like RSPL. In respect of the transactions done by RSPL, the crime money injected into the formal financial system is moved or spread over various transactions in different accounts. This step, under the PMLA, 2002 is referred to as:

A

(A) Smurfing

B

(B) Integration

C

(C) Layering

D

(D) Placement

question_5.65 MarksProblem Solving

Critically analyze the statement "the provisions of the Act need not necessarily apply only to persons, who try to hide their properties, but may also sometimes apply to genuine properties acquired out of disclosed funds". Also, cite the relevant incidence/s in the aforesaid case and the name of the relevant applicable Act.

question_5.75 MarksProblem Solving

Suresh formed a company, RSPL, primarily in the hotel business, but the source of funding was secret drug peddling/dealings. Answer the following as per the provisions of the PMLA, 2002. (i) Is secret drug peddling/dealings and then disguising the original source of money for business, a predicate offence? Is there any difference between a Scheduled Offence and a Predicate Offence? (ii) Who investigates predicate offences? (iii) What are the possible actions that can be taken against Suresh or RSPL or other concerned persons in the above case, for the alleged offences?

question_5.85 MarksProblem Solving

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted raid operations against Suresh and his associates after it obtained some inputs on the purported dubious financial transactions. Answer the following as per the provisions of the PMLA, 2002. (i) What are the rights of Suresh and his associates, being searched during the raid operations? (ii) What are the rights of Suresh in case of his arrest?

may_2023_paper_6D_economic_laws — CA Final | Kartavvya