INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Asif Ahmed, Tanmay Sharma and Bhanu Jindal, AZB & Partners
It is to be noted that the aforesaid activities are independent of each other and are therefore to be read disjunctively. Within its scope, the definition covers not only persons who are directly involved in any of the aforesaid activities but also those persons who (indirectly or directly) attempt to indulge or assist in the aforesaid activities. In other words, the PMLA not only criminalises an overt act of mon - ey laundering but also any attempt to commit the act of money laundering. The PC Act Under the PC Act, abetment of an offence under the Act by either a private person or a govern - ment official is punishable, whether or not the offence was committed as a consequence of that abetment. 1.4 Limitation Periods In India, the Limitation Act, 1963 (the “Limita- tion Act” ) provides that the period of limitation in the case of fraud commences from the time the fraud is actually discovered, or could have been discovered using reasonable measures, by the victim. However, where the fraud is continu - ing, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the fraud continues. Criminal Proceedings In general, the limitation period of an offence is dependent on the period of imprisonment pre - scribed for a particular offence. For example, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, a complaint must be filed within three years from the commission of the offence. In the case of offences relating to fraud - ulent acts, the limitation period would depend on the specific offence. It must be noted that criminal courts have inherent powers to con -
done delay where the delay has been properly explained or where it is in the interests of justice to do so. Additionally, for offences punishable with impris - onment of more than three years, no limitation period has been prescribed. Thus, a complaint pertaining to the offence of cheating and dishon - estly inducing delivery of property (punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment) or the forgery of a valuable security or will (punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment) can be filed For civil claims, the period of limitation is speci - fied under the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The periods differ depending on the causes of action; however, as stated above, the cause of action would commence from the time that the fraud is discovered or was discoverable. 1.5 Proprietary Claims Against Property The Contract Act Under the Contract Act, where an agreement is deemed to be void or voidable on account of fraud, the person who has received an undue advantage under such an agreement is bound to restore it. However, where restoration of such property is not possible on account of conver - sion of the proceeds of fraud, a claimant will still be entitled to compensation on account of the loss that they may have suffered. In such cases, the principles under Section 65 of the Contract Act may apply, which provide that any person who has received any advantage under such an agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom they received it. The term “received any advantage” provides for restitution of an inno - cent party to such position as though they had not entered into such a contract. This allows any at any point in time. Civil Proceedings
202 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook