Question Description
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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.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 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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?a)According to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the existence of predicate offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special legislation establishes the crime of money laundering.b)ED authorities differ from the police, who are primarily involved in making arrests and securing custody of suspects, in that they recover the proceeds of crime and redistribute them to victims.c)Because each agency functions separately, prior actions of the CBI in unrelated instances may not necessarily reflect on the EDs current approach to money laundering situations.d)The polices broader approach, which deals with numerous criminal acts outside of financial crimes, is complemented by EDs focus on financial investigations connected to money laundering and asset recovery.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.