The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009
Sections 2 and 4(2)
Challenging the Constitutional validity of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009
The petitioner challenged the legality of the Metro Special Case No. 126 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6286 of 2010 mainly on the ground that the proceed- ings under the provisions of the Ain of 2009 is barred under Articles 35(1) and 44 of the Constitution since the alleged offences were committed admittedly be- fore the enactment of the said Ain. Tarique Rahman vs. Government of Bangladesh (Md. Muzammel Hossain J) (Civil) 8 ADC 217
Section 2(a)- From the plain reading of the first information report it cannot be said that no prima-facie case could be detected against the accused persons. The prosecution case as stated in the first information report has got prima-facie ingredients of the offences alleged. The exact nature of the offence against the petitioners can only be thrashed out upon a trial. Muntasir Hossain MD, Unipay 2U (BD) Ltd vs State, 64 DLR 177
Sections 2(a)(1) and 4(2)- The matters need to be examined by the trial Court on examination of evidence to reach a decision whether the allegation as brought against the petitioners is under Money Laundering Prevention Act or not, which is not the function of this Court. Muntasir Hossain MD, Unipay 2U (BD) Ltd vs State, 64 DLR 177
Sections 2(a)(1) and 4(2)-Money Laundering is deemed as a financially based crime. It has potentially devastating economic security and social conse- quences. From the first information report and charge-sheet it cannot be said that no prima-facie case could be detected against the accused persons. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Unipay 2U Bangladesh Ltd 64 DLR 444
Section 9-Offence under Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002 or Ain, 2009 is deemed to be (অপরাধ গন্য) in the schedule of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 and the offence will be tried under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. (Per M Enayetur Rahim J) Mafruza Sultana vs State, 66 DLR 280
