The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 a...

To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.

Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.

Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?

a)
Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.
b)
Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.
c)
Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.
d)
Seizure of documents.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be ...

Once the offender appears, proceedings will be terminated as per the para above which means investigation under PMLA has to stop.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following statements cannot be deduced from the passage above, according to the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a key difference between ED authorities and the police in their approach to investigations?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is in the eye of the storm again as Opposition parties allege that the federal agency is targeting them. Nine Indian states have, so far, withdrawn consent to the CBI for prosecution in their respective jurisdictions and, this month, signals emerged that Bihar, which recently saw a change in government, could soon be the 10th. Unlike the National Investigation Agency (NI

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 allows for a person to be declared as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) if: (i) an arrest warrant has been issued against him for any specified offences where the value involved is over Rs 100 crore, and (ii) he has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution.To declare a person an FEO, an application will be filed in a Special Court (designated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) containing details of the properties to be confiscated, and any information about the person’s whereabouts. The Special Court will require the person to appear at a specified place at least six weeks from issue of notice. Proceedings will be terminated if the person appears. The Bill allows authorities to provisionally attach properties of an accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court. Upon declaration as an FEO, properties of a person may be confiscated and vested in the central government, free of encumbrances (rights and claims in the property). The Bill does not specify how the central government will use the sale proceeds. That is, would the government be obliged to share the sale proceeds with persons who may have a claim against the FEO.Further, the FEO or any company associated with him may be barred from filing or defending civil claims. Under Clause 14, any court or tribunal may bar a FEO from filing or defending any civil claim before it. Further, the Bill allows courts to bar a company from filing or defending any civil claim before it if the promoter, key managerial personnel (such as manager or CEO), or majority shareholder is an FEO. It may be argued that such a bar could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person (or company) can be deprived of their right to life or personal liberty, except by law. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to access justice, which cannot be taken away. This right includes the availability of a forum which aggrieved persons may approach to seek legal remedy. The question is whether a bar on filing and defending claims would violate this right. For instance, an individual who is declared an FEO may be involved in a marriage suit or inheritance dispute. Under Clause 14, courts are allowed to bar the individual from exercising his right to file or defend such a claim. Further, there may be cases where an FEO is the majority shareholder of a company. In such cases, even though the company is a separate legal entity, it may be barred from filing or defending cases.Q. The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under the Bill. These powers will be similar to those of a civil court. Which of the below is not a power they can exercise?a)Search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime.b)Search for premises on the belief that a person is an FEO.c)Investigation can continue under PMLA even after the offender appears.d)Seizure of documents.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam