Sections 22 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 22 sets presumptions that apply when records or property are found in a person's possession or control in a survey or search, or are produced, seized or frozen. Section 23 sets a presumption for money-laundering that involves two or more inter-connected transactions. Section 22(2) also deals with records received from outside India.
This article reads both sections from the consolidated text of the Act consulted (amendments shown up to 1 August 2019). Later amendments, rules and notifications should be checked; nothing after that date is stated here. No statement is made on how any court has treated these sections.
Where records or property are found with a person in a survey or search, or are produced, seized or frozen, it is presumed that they belong to that person, that the contents of the records are true, and that signatures and handwriting are genuine. Records received from outside India, duly authenticated, carry a presumption about handwriting and are admitted even if not duly stamped. Under section 23, where one or more of two or more inter-connected transactions is proved to be involved in money-laundering, the remaining transactions are presumed to form part of them unless otherwise proved.
Section 22(1): presumption for records or property found
Section 22(1) applies "where any records or property are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a survey or a search", or, in the words inserted by Act 2 of 2013, section 17 (w.e.f. 15-2-2013), "where any record or property is produced by any person or has been resumed or seized from the custody or control of any person or has been frozen under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force". In any of those cases "it shall be presumed that":
| Limb | Presumption |
|---|---|
| (i) | Such records or property belong or belongs to such person |
| (ii) | The contents of such records are true |
| (iii) | The signature and every other part of such records which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting; and, in the case of a record stamped, executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so stamped, executed or attested |
The occasions are widened by the inserted words. A survey or search is one occasion; the record or property being produced by a person, resumed or seized from a person, or frozen under this Act or any other law is another. Our articles on section 16 (survey) and section 17 (search, seizure and freezing) explain those powers.
The wording is "shall be presumed". The text does not say who must rebut the presumption, in what proceeding or by what standard. It contains no sentence saying that the presumption may be rebutted, and this article does not read in any. The reader dealing with a notice or a proceeding where this presumption is relied on can get the position read against the section through legal dispute resolution support.
Section 22(2): records received from outside India
Where records "have been received from any place outside India, duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed, in the course of proceedings under this Act", the Special Court, the Appellate Tribunal or the Adjudicating Authority, as the case may be, "shall":
- (a) presume that the signature and every other part of such record which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, or which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and, in the case of a record executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;
- (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence.
Three features stand out. First, the authentication is by "such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed", so the details are in rules and none are in the text consulted. Second, the three bodies named are the Special Court, the Appellate Tribunal and the Adjudicating Authority. Third, clause (b) deals with stamping: a document that is not duly stamped is still admitted, if it is "otherwise admissible in evidence". Whether it is admissible on other grounds is a matter for the law of evidence, and the reader should check the current law for the corresponding provision.
| Section 22(1) | Section 22(2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Records or property in a survey, search, production, seizure or freezing | Records received from outside India, duly authenticated |
| What is presumed | Belonging; truth of contents; handwriting and execution | Handwriting and execution only |
| Admission in evidence | Not stated | Admitted even if not duly stamped, if otherwise admissible |
| Who applies it | Not stated | Special Court, Appellate Tribunal or Adjudicating Authority |
Note that section 22(2) does not carry the presumption that the contents are true. That presumption appears in section 22(1)(ii) only.
Section 23: inter-connected transactions
Section 23 says: "Where money-laundering involves two or more inter-connected transactions and one or more such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering, then for the purposes of adjudication or confiscation under section 8 or for the trial of the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, be presumed that the remaining transactions from part of such inter-connected transactions."
The words "under section 8 or for the trial of the money-laundering offence, it shall unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court" were substituted by Act 2 of 2013, section 18 (w.e.f. 15-2-2013), as the footnote prints.
Printing slip: the section ends "the remaining transactions from part of such inter-connected transactions". The word "from" is printed where "form" appears to be meant. It is quoted as printed.
| Element | As printed |
|---|---|
| Starting point | Money-laundering involves two or more inter-connected transactions |
| Trigger | One or more of such transactions is or are proved to be involved in money-laundering |
| Purpose | Adjudication or confiscation under section 8, or the trial of the money-laundering offence |
| Presumption | The remaining transactions form part of such inter-connected transactions |
| Rebuttal | "unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court" |
Unlike section 22, section 23 states in so many words that the presumption yields if "otherwise proved to the satisfaction of" the named body. It names the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication and confiscation, and the Special Court for the trial. The text does not define "inter-connected", and this article gives no test for it. The proceedings under section 8 are explained in our article on section 8.
How these presumptions relate to burden of proof
Section 24 deals separately with the burden of proof in proceedings relating to proceeds of crime. Our article on section 24 explains it. Sections 22 and 23 set presumptions about records, property and transactions; section 24 sets presumptions about whether proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. They are separate provisions and are read separately.
An illustration
The names are invented. During a search at the office of Jaya Enterprises, officers find a ledger and a cheque book in the possession of its partner, Mr Prakash Nair. Under section 22(1), it is presumed that the ledger and cheque book belong to Mr Nair, that the contents of the ledger are true, and that the signatures in it are in the handwriting of the persons they purport to be. Separately, in a proceeding, a bank statement is received from a place outside India, duly authenticated as prescribed. Under section 22(2), the Adjudicating Authority presumes the handwriting and admits the document even though it is not duly stamped, if otherwise admissible.
In another matter, three bank transfers are inter-connected, and two are proved to be involved in money-laundering. Under section 23, the third is presumed to form part of the same inter-connected transactions, unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be.
The examples show how the sections read. They do not say how any proceeding will end.
Need help where a presumption is relied on?
A presumption changes what has to be shown in a proceeding, and the words of the section decide how far it goes. We can read the section against your documents and the proceeding with you through legal dispute resolution.
Key takeaways
- Where records or property are found in a survey or search, or are produced, seized or frozen, section 22(1) presumes ownership, truth of contents and genuineness of handwriting and execution.
- Records received from outside India, duly authenticated as prescribed, attract a presumption of handwriting and execution and are admitted even if not duly stamped, if otherwise admissible.
- The Special Court, the Appellate Tribunal or the Adjudicating Authority applies section 22(2), as the case may be.
- Section 23 presumes that remaining inter-connected transactions form part of those proved to be involved in money-laundering.
- Section 23 applies unless otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court.
- Section 23 prints "from part" where "form part" appears to be meant.
Read next
- Section 24: burden of proof
- Sections 20 and 21: retention of seized or frozen property and records
- Section 17: search, seizure and freezing of property
- Enforcement Directorate (ED): Powers Under PMLA
Disclaimer: Based on the consolidated text of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 published by the Enforcement Directorate, showing amendments up to Act 23 of 2019 (1 August 2019), and on the Department of Revenue consolidated copy of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 listing amendments up to 19 July 2024, as consulted on 2 October 2026. Later amendments, notifications, other rules and regulator directions should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.