Burden of proof
Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 deals with burden of proof. In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act,-- (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2005.
1[24. Burden of proof.--In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act,--
(a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and
(b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering.]
Section 24, The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (Act 15 of 2003).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Three-judge Bench upheld the PMLA scheme: s.3 offence (including the explanation treating possession/use as money-laundering), s.5 attachment, s.19 arrest, s.24 reverse burden, substituted s.45 bail conditions, and s.50 inquiry powers of the ED, as not violating Articles 14/20/21 when read with the 2019 amendments. Teaching counterpart to Nikesh (which had struck down old s.45). SLP(Crl) 5487/2017 batch; 470 orders — use Judgement order-410.pdf 27 July 2022, not order-411.pdf ROP.
On this section: Reverse burden under s.24 upheld as not inherently unconstitutional in a special anti-laundering statute.
-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail (that Public Prosecutor be given opportunity to oppose and that Court be satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail), is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India because: (1) the classification based on sentencing of predicate offences has no rational nexus to the object of the PMLA Act which is to attach proceeds of crime and bring money laundering offenders to book; (2) the twin conditions relate to guilt of predicate offence, not money laundering offence, creating a disconnect; (3) the provision produces manifestly arbitrary results depending on whether predicate offence is in Part A or Part B of Schedule or whether person is charged with money laundering alone; (4) the provision inverts the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to criminal law; (5) the procedure is not fair, just and reasonable as required by Article 21; and (6) the provision lacks a compelling state interest justifying such drastic inroads into personal liberty.
On this section: Inverts burden of proof by presuming proceeds are involved in money laundering; cited by Attorney General but distinguished by Court
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 24
What have the courts held on Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act?
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (27 Jul 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Reverse burden under s.24 upheld as not inherently unconstitutional in a special anti-laundering statute. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2017 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Pmla 24, section 24 Pmla, section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. People searching for it also type 24 pmla. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (27 Jul 2022).
What should I read with Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Offence of money-laundering), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act come into force?
Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, cited as Pmla 24, came into force on 01 Jul 2005, having been enacted on 17 Jan 2003. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1773 words
- 8. Adjudication975 words
- 6. Adjudicating Authorities, composition, powers, etc781 words
- 73. Power to make rules704 words
- 17. Search and seizure570 words
- 5. Attachment of property involved in money-laundering570 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.