Team Code: LLDC- 001

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2021

Before

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana

Veer Singhania…....................................................................................Petitioner

Union Of India.....................................................................................Respondent

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT]

2
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………..5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………….9

ISSUES
RAISED……………………………………………………………………………….12

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………….13

WRITTEN PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………………….15

[1] COMPETENT COURT IN INDIA HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE PRESENT CASE?
   
[1.1] EXTRA TERRITORIAL OPERATION………………………………………………….15

[1.2] PROVISIONS RELATED WITH “EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF CRPC”

……………………………………………………………………………………………….…15

[1.3] EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF CRPC………………………………….16

[2] WHETHER THE TRIAL OF VEER BY THE COURT OF INDIA, FOR THE SAME
OFFENCE THAT HAD ALREADY FACED IN DUBAI, WOULD AMOUNT TO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
……………………………………………………………………….17

3
[2.1] DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN INDIAN CONTEXT………….………………………………17
[2.2] DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN CROSS BORDER OFFENCES………………………............17
[2.3] INDIA- UAE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS IN CROSS- BORDER

OFFENCE…………………………………………………………………………………….18

[2.4] JURISPRUDENCE AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY……….………………………………19

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[3] WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
AND ALSO UNDERSECTION 5, 8 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT,
1956?...........................................................................................................................................20

[3.1] FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY (FSMA) ON ONLINE

SCAMMING ON TINDER……………………………………………………………………...20
[3.2] SECTION 367 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE………………………………….21
[3.3] SECTION 368 IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE…………………………………21
[3.4] VEER’S DECEPTION AND HABITUAL DEALINGS…………………………22

[4] WHETHER ALLEGED TRANSACTION THROUGH BITCOINS AND ITS EXCHANGE

INTO INDIAN CURRENCY IS CONTRARY TO LAW IN INDIA?.....................................22
 
[4.1] THE STANCE OF RBI…………………………………………………………………23
[4.2] RATIONALE BEHIND THE CIRCULAR……………………………………………….23

[4.3] REGULATION WITHIN THE POWERS OF RBI………………………………………24

[4.4] NO COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER…………………………………………..24

[4.5] NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE…………………………………………25

[5] WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENSE PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT,2002
4
AND SECTION 13 OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT,
1999?....................................................................................................................................2

[5.1] CRYPTOCURRENCY AND PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING

ACT,2002……………………………………………………………………………….26

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[5.2] MONEY LAUNDERING UNDER PMLA, 2002……………….………………….26

[5.3] REQUIREMENT OF AUTHORISED BROKER AND VERIFICATION FOR
TRANSACTION IN CRYPTOCURRENCIES…………………………………………..26

[5.4] FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999 & CRYPTOCURRENCIES. .27

[5.5] IMPLICATION UNDER FEMA FOR TRADING IN CRYPTOCURRENCIES….…28

[5.6] CROSS-BORDER TRANSACTION AND CRYPTOCURRENCY….…………………..29

PRAYER……………….......................................................................................................................30

5
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.........................................................................................

STATUTES
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860…………………………………………………….
2. The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973…………………………………….

3. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002…………………………………

4. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999…………………………………

5. Banking and Regulation Act, 1949…………………………………………

6. The Finance Act, 1994……………………………………………………..

CASES

1. R. V. Wellard, (1978) 3 All ER 161 : (1978) 1 WLR 921…………………….

2. Natha Singh, (1883) PR No. 11 of 1883…………………………………….
3. Podda Narayan v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC1252 : (1974)4 SCC 153………..
4. Ismail Sayadsaheb, (1993) 35 Bom LR 886 : 57 Bom 537 FB………………….
5. Kumudini Padhi v. Prasanta Kumar Mondal,. 1989 Cr LJ 1861 (Ori)………….
6. Dutta v. State of Orissa, 1985 Cr LJ 1842 (Ori)…………………………………
7. Bibbe v. Ramkali , AIR 1982 ALL 246 ( 250)…………………………………..
8. Seikh Yusuf v. State of W.B., 1989 Cr LJ (NOC) 62 (Cal)……………………..
9. Banshi Lal v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 297 (Raj)……………………………………….
10. State of H.P. V. Mt. Kala, AIR 1957 HP 42 : 1957 C r LJ 847…………………
11. Munshi Ram v. State of Rajisthan, 1983 Cr LR (Raj) 274………………………
12. Purna Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa , (1985) 2 Crimes 418 ( Ori)……………
13. State of M.P. v. Kamruddin , AIR Nag 74 :1956 Cr LJ 263……………………
14. Peter v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 496 : 102 IC 209…………………………….
6
15. Harbharosa Mohammad v. Jhapuran Bibi, AIR 1930 Cal 665 : 51 Cal LJ 476..
16. Oroos Fatima alias Nisha v. S.S.P. Aligarh, 1993 Cr LJ I (All)………………..

7
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

17.State (Delhi Admin) v. Panna Lal, 1993 Cr LJ 852 ( Del)……………………..

18. Davinder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), ( 1989) 1 Crimes 753 (Del)…
19. Jitmihan Lohar V. State, 1998 Cr LJ 2482 (Ori)………………………………….
20. Samir Saha v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 1360 (Gau)……………………………………..
17. Samir Saha v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 1360 (Gau)……………………………………..
18. Mahesh Kumar v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 1597 (Raj)…………………………………..
19. Dewan Singh v. The State, 1998 Cr LJ 3905 (Del.)………………………………..
20. Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar, 1998 Cr LJ 4033 (SC)………………………
21. Bagula Naik v. State of Bihar , 1998 Cr LJ 2077 (Ori)……………………………..
22. State v. Naresh, 1996 Cr LJ 3164 (P&H)…………………………………………….
23. Shyam Sundar Kar v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1310 :Cut LT 951………………………….
24. Chhotelal v. State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1494 : 1979 Cr LJ 1126………………
25. Krishna v. State of U.P.,1980 Cr LJ 121 (All) : 1980 All Cr R 5……………………
26. Vinod Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC911 :1984 Cr LJ 814………………
27. Prafullkumar Basu, (1929) 57 Cal 1074, 1079…………………………………………
28. Pholla v. State of Rajisthan, 1979 Raj LW 103 : 1979 WLN 458……………………
29. Ranuki Swaroop v. State, AIR 1970 Punj 450 : 1970 Cr LJ 1383……………………
30. Banamali Tripathy v. Empror , AIR 1943 Pat 212 : 44 Cr LJ 590…………………..
31. Moti Chand and others v. State, 2001 Cr LJ 1916 (Raj)…………………………….
32. Niranjan v. State, 2001 Cr LJ NOC 18 (Ori)…………………………………………
33. Lottan Prasad V. State, 2001 Cr LJ NOC 24 (MD)………………………………….
34. Khali-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11 Ran 213 FB…………………………………………..
35. Taher Khan, (1917) 45 Cal 641………………………………………………………
36. Sant Ram, (1929) 11Lah 178………………………………………………………..
37. Phoola v. state of Rajisthan, 1979 Raj LW 103 : 1979 WLN 458…………………
38. Nilambar Gowda v. State of Orissa , 1982 Cr LJ (NOC) 172 (Ori)……………….
39. Dalchand v. State, AIR 1969 All 216 : 1969 Cr LJ 585 : 1967 All WR 418………
40. Khalil-Ur-Rehman, (1993) 11 Ran 213 FB………………………………………….
41. Durga Das v. King Empror, 1 Cr LJ 949……………………………………………
42. Empror v. Ramachander, AIR 1914 All 376 : 15 Cr LJ 265………………………..
43. Lakhu v. Empror, AIR 1920 Lah 467 : 2 Lah LJ 536………………………………

8
44. Empror v. Naga Nge, 2 Cr LJ 476………………………………………………….
LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

45. Haribhabi Dada v. Emperor, AIR 1918 Bom 205 : 20 Bom LR 372……………..
46. T.D.Vadgama v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1973 SC 2313 : 1973 Cr LJ 1541…………
47. Sant Ram , (1929) 11 Lah 178……………………………………………………..
48. Dalchand v.State of U.P., AIR 1969 All 216……………………………………….

49. R. V. Wellard, (1978) 3 All ER 161 : (1978) 1 WLR 921……………………………

50. Natha Singh, (1883) PR No. 11 of 1883……………………………………………..
51. Podda Narayan v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC1252 : (1974)4 SCC 153…………….
52. Ismail Sayadsaheb, (1993) 35 Bom LR 886 : 57 Bom 537 FB………………………
53. Kumudini Padhi v. Prasanta Kumar Mondal,. 1989 Cr LJ 1861 (Ori)………………
54. Dutta v. State of Orissa, 1985 Cr LJ 1842 (Ori)……………………………………
55. Bibbe v. Ramkali , AIR 1982 ALL 246 ( 250)……………………………………..
56. Seikh Yusuf v. State of W.B., 1989 Cr LJ (NOC) 62 (Cal)…………………………
57. Banshi Lal v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 297 (Raj)…………………………………………
58. State of H.P. V. Mt. Kala, AIR 1957 HP 42 : 1957 C r LJ 847…………………….
59. Munshi Ram v. State of Rajisthan, 1983 Cr LR (Raj) 274 ………………………..
60. Purna Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa , (1985) 2 Crimes 418 ( Ori) …………….
61. State of M.P. v. Kamruddin , AIR Nag 74 :1956 Cr LJ 263……………………..
62. Peter v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 496 : 102 IC 209……………………………..
63. Harbharosa Mohammad v. Jhapuran Bibi, AIR 1930 Cal 665 : 51 Cal LJ 476 …..
64. Oroos Fatima alias Nisha v. S.S.P. Aligarh, 1993 Cr LJ I (All)…………………….
65. State (Delhi Admin) v. Panna Lal, 1993 Cr LJ 852 ( Del)…………………………..
66. Davinder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), ( 1989) 1 Crimes 753 (Del)……..
67. Siddik Singh Pritam Singh v. State, 1993 Cr LJ 2919 (Bom)……………………..
68. Omi alias Om Prakash v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr LJ 155 (All)……………………
69. Mdan Lal v. Dr. Jaswant Batra, 1994 Cr LJ 1767 (Del)………………………….
70. Anandhan v. State, 1995 Cr LJ 632 (Mad)……………………………………….

9
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

BOOKS

1. A.B. Kafaltiya, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES............................................................................. 2

2. Andrew Ashworth, PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW................................................................... 14
3. M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW............................................ 3, 5
4. M.R. Reddi, ANTI-CORRUPTION LAWS AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES.........................10
5. Patrick Birkinshaw, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE LAW, THE PRACTICE AND THE
IDEAL.............................................................................................................................................................. 5
6. S.C. Sarkar, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE........................................................... 8, 9, 10
7. S.P. Sathe, RIGHT TO INFORMATION................................................................................................... 3
8. S.P.Sathe, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW....................................................................................................... 3
9. Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law 29 (David Ormerod ed., 13th edn., 2011)..............12

10
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Veer Singhania aged 30 years fell in love with Rohini Singh, aged 24 years. Their relationship
culminated on an online meeting platform called Tinder. Owing to Rohini's predilection towards
Veer she had dug her heels in and despite the family opposition decided to get married with Veer
within one month. Veer having a charming personality had an encounter with a wealthy oil
baron, Sheik Abdul Tayyar, whose office was in Venice (Italy) and who was on his way home to
Dubai. Their interaction turned out to be a serendipity as Veer being a serial entrepreneur was
searching for a venture capital market and Sheikh Abdullah Tayyar was looking to diversify his
holdings. After a brief conversation Tayyar invited Veer to visit him at his villa where they could
talk business.

THE TRAP
Rohini and Veer visited Abdul Tyyar’s residence after three days of visiting Dubai, where they
had been told that since the family of the Tyyar had a traditional attitude, Rohini would not be
privy to business discussions, and Tyyar’s wives would show her in the process. Veer and
Tayyar begin business negotiations concerning Tayyar’s proposed investment into a mobile
payments get a way that Veer was building. To start the project a sum of 7000 Bitcoins was also
immediately transferred to Veer 's account by Tayyar. After negotiations ,when Veer decided to
leave with his wife , he was informed by Tyyar that he had become delusional about having a
wife. Veer's firm resolve that he had come with his wife made Tayyar call his three wives who
again corroborated what Tyyar previously said. Not only that the cab driver who drove Veer to
the villa had the same opinion. Infuriated yet scared Veer went back to the hotel to collect his
and Rohini’s passports where he was yet again told that there were no records of him having
checked in with any women and that he was staying in a business suite. On entering the suite he
found that all his goods had been moved to the room excluding his camera and wife's clothes.
The sole piece of evidence that he had to prove,that he was right were the few pictures on his
smartphone with his wife.

11
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

LODGING OF FIRST CASE

During this turmoil Rohini's family had been trying to reach her on telephone but to no avail,
fearing for the safety of their daughter , Rohini's father Bisham Singh , Commissioner of Central
excise, flew to Dubai to trace her whereabouts. After meeting with Veer at the hotel and listening
to what had happened , Mr Singh did not believe a word of what he told him and was convinced
that we was indulging in human trafficking and had sold his dear daughter off. Mr Singh
instantly went to the local police station in Dubai and lodged a case against Veer, where they
contacted the Chandigarh police in India to enquire into veers antecedents and meanwhile also
followed up with the immigration and customs bureau to verify whether Rohini had indeed come
into the UAE.

THE INVESTIGATION
The prosecution claimed that Veer had performed a sham marriage with Rohini in order to force
her into coming to Dubai with him where he proceeded to sell her to Sheikh Abdul Tayyar for a
sum of 7000 bitcoins , however defence contended that he was being victimized by the system
and would never do such a heinous crime , to corroborate the same witnesses from hotel staff
were examined and they testified that veer and Rohini looked very much like a couple in deep
love. Photographs of Rohini and Veer have a good time were also produced not only that the
immigration bureau filed an affidavit stating that they had a record of Veer and Rohini entering
Dubai together as husband and wife on 5 Jan 2019. After detailed arguments, court finally
acquitted Veer and directed the police to conduct an investigation into Sheikh activities, a
knowing that he was a person who had enough cloud to bribe witnesses and hotel staff to further
his ends his role in the entire episode seemed dubious.

ARREST AT IGIA
When Veer flew back to India on 21st December 2019 he was arrested by a special detail of
Chandigarh police at the Indira Gandhi international airport and was taken for questioning. All
of this was done on the basis of FIR no 920 had been registered at the behest of the girl's mother
Swapna Singh on December 16 2019 of 2019 under section 363 366 367 368 369 370 371 of the
Indian penal code and also under section 5 and 8 of the immoral traffic prevention act 1956.In

12
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

the lights of happened events veer applied for a bail conditioned he approached To pay for his
legal formalities veer approached Rehmat, a currency broaker who dealt in bitcoins and
transferred 5000 bitcoins to him for which he received Rs 46 lakhs in cash.

FURTHER CHARGES

As soon as the Chandigarh police became conscious of the transaction which was entered into by
Veer with Rahamat the police arrested both for dealing in Bitcoins. they contended that such
activity was in contravention of the foreign trade and exchange laws and various RBI
regulations. not only that, it also amounted to an offence under the prevention of money
laundering act. pursuing investigation for the same, Rahamat shop was sealed and a special team
ceased all the electronic machinery and other documents found their. post the raid and arrests
FIR number 923 of 2019, dated January 1st 2019 were filed under section 4 of prevention of
money laundering act 2002 and sections 347 and 13 of the foreign exchange management act
1999.

13
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER COMPETENT COURT IN INDIA HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY

THE PRESENT CASE?

II.

WHETHER TRIAL OF VEER BY THE COURT IN INDIA, FOR THE SAME CHARGES THAT HE

HAD ALREADY FACED IN DUBAI, AS THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

III.

WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366, 367, 368,
369, 370, 371 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 5, 8 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC

(PREVENTION) ACT, 1956?

IV.

WHETHER ALLEGED TRANSACTION THROUGH BITCOINS AND ITS EXCHANGE INTO INDIAN CURRENCY IS
CONTRARY TO LAW IN INDIA?

v.

WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 AND SECTION 13 OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE

MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999?

14
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] COMPETENT COURT IN INDIA HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE PRESENT CASE?
It is humbly submitted that Punjab and Haryana High Court have the jurisdiction to try the
present case at hand because section 3 and 4 of Indian Penal Code clearly asserts offences
committed beyond India , but which by law may be tried within India. They talk about the extra
territorial offences. In this Section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside
India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code.

[2] WHETHER TRIAL OF VEER BY THE COURT IN INDIA, FOR THE SAME CHARGES THAT HE HAD
ALREADY FACED IN DUBAI, AS THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

It is humbly submitted that the competent court trying veer’s case in India for the same charges
that he had already faced in Dubai would not amount to double jeopardy. It is well established
that double jeopardy is not a principle of international law. It does not apply between different
countries, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries and since there is
no contractual agreement between India and UAE pertaining to the matter of double jeopardy,
the same would not apply in the case at hand. No provision under Indian statutory law
expressively mentions any protection against double jeopardy in cross border offences.

[3] WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363,
366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ALSO UNDERSECTION 5, 8 OF THE IMMORAL
TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956?

It is humbly submitted that according to the fact of the case it is beyond any pale of doubt that
there was an involvement of some sort of deception on Veer’s part, he not only agreed to marry a
girl who was well below his age but also did not even try to appease her parents and went ahead
and married Rohini despite her family’s opposition. Getting yoked just after one month of
meeting each other, going on the honeymoon in less than one week, Rohini’s disappearance in
UAE only after the transaction had happened between Veer and Tayyar all points to the harsh
reality of Veer’s well planned deception web of trafficking Rohini. It is no “Elephant in the
room’’ that Veer also had a previous record of losing his previous during his honeymoon at the
same place which again potentially puts him in the purview of breaching section 371 of I.P.C

15
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[4] WHETHER ALLEGED TRANSACTION THROUGH BITCOINS AND ITS EXCHANGE INTO
INDIANCURRENCY IS CONTRARY TO LAW IN INDIA?

It is humbly submitted that the alleged transaction was illegal.  RBI circular dated 6th April 2018
put a ban on dealings in virtual currencies. It stated
“In view of the associated risks, it has been decided that, with immediate effect, entities
regulated by the Reserve Bank shall not deal in VCs or provide services for facilitating any
person or entity in dealing with or settling VCs. Such services include maintaining accounts,
registering, trading, settling, clearing, giving loans against virtual tokens, accepting them as
collateral, opening accounts of exchanges dealing with them and transfer / receipt of money in
accounts relating to purchase/ sale of VCs”. Since it is sufficiently clear from the circular that the
alleged transaction falls within the purview of the ban put by RBI on bitcoin transaction it can be
said beyond any pale of doubt that the transaction was in contravention of the circular released
by RBI and was thus illegal.

[5] WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 AND SECTION 13 OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE
MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999?

It is respectfully submitted that the acgt of Veer to transact in bitcoins with unauthorised dealers
in UAE and India is a violation of PMLA, 2002 and also a violation of export regulations under
FEMA, 1999. The deeds of Veer is punishable under the India Statutory laws. Veer is liable to
be punished under Section 4 of Prevention Of Money Laundering Act 2002 and Foreign
Exchange Management Act, 1999.

16
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

[1] COMPETENT COURT IN INDIA HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE PRESENT CASE?
Sections 3 and 4 of the IPC deals with the extra-territorial operation of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 3 of I.P.C asserts that any person liable, by any Indian law, to be tried for an offence
committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this code for any act
committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.
Section 4 of I.P.C is an Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences. It applies to –
• Any citizen of India in any place of the world.
• Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.
• Any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer
resource located in India.
[1.1] EXTRA TERRITORIAL OPERATION
Section 3 and Section 4 relate to the extra-territorial operation of the Code. These two sections
relate to substantive law, they do not relate to procedure. The words of these sections postulate
the existence of a law that an act constituting an offence in India shall also be an offence when
committed outside India. This section only applies to the case of a person who at the time of
committing the offence charged was amenable to an Indian Court. 1 Thus an Indian citizen who
committed an offence outside India which was not an offence according to the laws of that
country would still be liable to be tried in India if it was an offence under the Indian law.2
In the present case at hand, Veer was charged with offences under the Penal Code of UAE and
these offences are biddable to an Indian court.

[1.2] PROVISIONS RELATED WITH “EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF CRPC”

Section 188 of the CRPC deals with the offences committed outside India. When an offence is
committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

1
Shadili Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 : 1960 Cr LJ 410, 415.
2
Ajay Aggarwal v. Union Of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637 : 1993 Cr LJ 2516

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be
dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been com- mitted at any place within India at
which he may be found.

The Section 188 of the CRPC provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction over Indian citizens as
well as Non-Indian Citizens. Language of the Section is plain and simple. It operates where an
offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country.
Requirements are, therefore, one - commission of an offence; second - by an Indian citizen;
and third - that it should have been committed outside the country.

[1.3] EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF CRPC

The Indian courts are empowered to try offences committed out of India either on land or on
ship, or on aircraft.
Offences committed on land
By virtue of Section 3 and 4 of Indian penal Code and Section 188 of CRPC, local courts can
take cognizance of offences committed beyond the territories of India. 3 It was held in Om
Hemrajani v. State of U.P.4, that section 188 is to dispel any objection or plea of want of
jurisdiction at the behest of a fugitive who has committed an offence in any other country. If
such a person is found anywhere in India, the offence can be inquired into and tried by any Court
that may be approached by the victim. The convenience of victim is of importance. It is clear
that neither the place of business nor place of residence of the petitioner and for that matter of
even the complainant is of any relevance.

It is clear from the above- mentioned provisions that Punjab and Haryana High Court has the
proper jurisdiction to try the present case at hand.

3
Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jan.-Mar., 1964), pp. 104-116
4
Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P.

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

18
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[2] WHETHER TRIAL OF VEER BY THE COURT IN INDIA, FOR THE SAME CHARGES THAT HE HAD
ALREADY FACED IN DUBAI, AS THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that prevents an accused person from being tried
again on the same charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction in
the same jurisdiction.5 The doctrine appears to have originated from Roman law, in the
principle non bis in idem ("an issue once decided must not be raised again").6

[2.1]Double Jeopardy In Indian Context:

In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea may take the specific
forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict.7

Autrefois Acquit: If a person is prosecuted and subsequently acquitted for an offence, he can
not be put on trial again for the same offence. It is embodied in Section 300 CrPC. In India,
protection against autrefois acquit is a Statutory Right.
Autrefois Convict: If a person is prosecuted and punished for a perticular offence, he can not
be put on trial again for the same offence. It is embodied in Section 300 CrPC as well as
Article 20(2) of Indian Constitution. In India, protection against double jeopardy in defence of
autrefois conviction is a Fundamental Right.

[2.2] Double Jeopardy in cross border offences:

1. The rule of Double Jeopardy is not applicable in International Law. It does not apply in
cross border offences, unless having been contractually agreed on between those countries.

The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights recognise,

5
Rudstein, David S. (2005). "A Brief History of the Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy".
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal.
6
Buckland, W. W. (1963). A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (3 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
UP. pp. 695–6
7
Benét, Stephen Vincent (1864). A Treatise on Military Law and the Practice of Courts-martial. p. 97

19
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2. Article 14 (7): "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for
which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and
penal procedure of each country."

The convention also mentions:

 liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and
detention and the right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 – 11)
 procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial
trial, the presumption of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law
(Articles 14, 15, and 16)

The covenant commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals,
including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.

However, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant
extradition treaty expresses a prohibition).

[2.3] India- UAE contractual agreements in cross- border offences:

The Govt. of UAE and the government of Republic India entered into an agreement in 1999 on
mutual assistance in criminal suits following two countries signed an extradition treaty in 2000
which said:
[2.3.1] Both countries are required to handover the accused to the other country, the person to
be extradited where such person is accused of an offense in the country requisting extradition
with the requirement that the offence must be punishable in both the countries with at atleast
one year of imprisonment, or the person has been sentenced by the court of the other country
for at least six months.8

8
India-UAE Judicial Collaboration Treaty, 2000.

20
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[2.3.2] In 2011, UAE and India signed an agreement for Transfer of Sentenced Prisoner for
social reformation of individuals convicted in different countries. This agreement will allow
the accused sentenced in other countries to spend their imprisonment in their native country.
However, the concerned agreement is not applicable on heinous offences like murder, drug
abuse, financial frauds, etc 9

1. It is to be noted that none of contractual agreements specifically mentions any provisions

related to double jeopardy between India and UAE. So, Veer can be tried in India for double
jeopardy as there is no contrary provision to the same between India and UAE.

[2.4] Jurisprudence and double jeopardy :

2. It is to be noted that none of the provision of either CrPC or IPC mentions anything
against double jeopardy in cross border offences. Section 300 of CrPC which says “Person
once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence” and classifies certain
subsections, no where expressively mentions any protection against double jeopardy in cross
border offence.

3. It is humbly submitted that there should be no bar in prosecution of Veer in India for same
offence as there is no law contrary to the same. The principle of double jeopardy is not a
principle of international law. Neither of the treaties between India and UAE and nor any of
the provisions under Indian Statutory Acts provides any law protecting against double
jeopardy in cross border offences.

9
India- UAE Agreement on Transfer Of Sentenced Prisoner, 2011.

21
 LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[3] WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363,
366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ALSO UNDERSECTION 5, 8 OF THE IMMORAL
TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956?

Section 366 of I.P.C. “Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.”
Section 367 of I.P.C. deals with “Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous
hurt, slavery, etc. Section 368 of I.P.C. deals with Wrongfully concealing or keeping in
confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. Section 370 of I.P.C. deals with Trafficking of
Person, it states Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transport (c) harbours,
(d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons by- First- using threats, or Secondly- using
force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly- by abduction, or Fourthly- by practising fraud,
or deception, or Fifthly- by abuse of power, or Sixthly- by inducement, including the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control
over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of
trafficking. Section 371 of I.P.C. deals with Habitual dealing in slaves Whoever habitually
imports, exports, removes, buys, sells, traffics or deals in slaves, shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding for
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. This Section make a cognizable and non-bailable
offence of punishment with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years.

[3.1] Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) on online scamming on Tinder:

It is previously seen FSMA on certain occasions has warned tinder users from online scamming.
Many men portray themselves as ‘as charming men’ on Tinder in the hopes of luring victims into
investment scams. The FSMA explained: “Dating sites and apps such as Tinder are venues
conducive to emotional scam attempts. These sites and apps have lately also been used to
prospect for potential preys to investment fraud”. 10 It can be argued that Veer had a previous
record when her previous wife was disappeared during honeymoon 6 years ago in the same way
as Rohini was. The investigation at the time yielded no result. There is a possibility that Veer
scammed Rohini in the same way through tinder as it is bit sceptical to know that she agreed to
marry just one month after she met Veer. Considering the dubiousness of the activities of Veer,
he should be prosecuted under Section 366 of IPC.

10
FSMA report on “Dating Scams on Tinder”

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

22
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[3.2] Section 367 in The Indian Penal Code

“Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to griev-ous hurt, slavery, etc.— Whoever
kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed
of as to be put in danger of being subject to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of
any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.”11

It can be said that Rohini could have been subjected to grievous hurt as there were no traces of
her after they met with Abdul Tayyar in UAE. The three wives of Abdul Tayyar disappeared
with Rohini. There is a possibility that the sole purpose of inducing Rohini was to abduct her and
to sell her through Human trafficking. Rohini must have been subjected to grievous hurt while
the process she was disappeared. It can be argued by the series of actions, that Veer should be
prosecuted under Section 367 of IPC.

[3.3] Section 368 in The Indian Penal Code:

“Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. —Whoever,
knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or
confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted
such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for
which he conceals or detains such person in confinement.” The disappearance of Rohini from
Abdul Tayyar’s place is self-explainable that Veer had a conspiracy with Abdul Tayyar to
wrongfully confine Rohini after aducting her and to sell her at the cost of 7000 bitcoins. Veer
should be prosecuted under Section 368 of IPC as the series of action did by Veer are clearly
uncertain. It is humbly submitted that Veer’s investigation of previous wife should be re-
contemplated considering the homogeneity of it with the present case. The alikeness of the
present case with what was done with his previous wife in similar manner should not be just
considered as coincidence.

11
Indian penal code, 1860

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

23
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

[3.4] Veer’s Deception and habitual dealings

It is humbly submitted that according to the fact of the case it is beyond any pale of doubt that
there was an involvement of some sort of deception on Veer’s part, he not only agreed to marry a
girl who was well below his age but also did not even try to appease her parents and went ahead
and married Rohini despite her family’s opposition. Getting yoked just after one month of
meeting each other, going on the honeymoon in less than one week, Rohini’s disappearance in
UAE only after the transaction had happened between Veer and Tayyar all points to the harsh
reality of Veer’s well planned deception web of trafficking Rohini. It is no “Elephant in the
room’’ that Veer also had a previous record of losing his previous during his honeymoon at the
same place which again potentially puts him in the purview of breaching section 371 of I.P.C.
[4] WHETHER ALLEGED TRANSACTION THROUGH BITCOINS AND ITS EXCHANGE INTO INDIAN
CURRENCY IS CONTRARY TO LAW IN INDIA?

Digital currencies mean digital representations of value, issued by Pvt developers and
denominated in there own unit of account. Digital currencies are not necessarily attached to fiat
currency, but are accepted by natural or legal persons as a medium of exchange 12. In 6th April
2018 RBI released a circular governing circulation of crypto currencies in Indian economy and
putting the ban on the same, it stated “In view of the associated risks, it has been decided that,
with immediate effect, entities regulated by the Reserve Bank shall not deal in VCs or provide
services for facilitating any person or entity in dealing with or settling VCs. Such services
include maintaining accounts, registering, trading, settling, clearing, giving loans against virtual
tokens, accepting them as collateral, opening accounts of exchanges dealing with them and
transfer / receipt of money in accounts relating to purchase/ sale of VCs”. Following the same
there was writ petition filed by IMAI in the high court of India challenging the circular released
by RBI on 17-05-2018, the court passed the interim order permitting the IMAI to submit the
representation to RBI with a further direction to RBI to deal with the same with the accordance
to the law. Therefore it is humbly submitted that firstly the circular released by RBI is in
accordance with the law and secondly the alleged transaction falls within the purview of the
circular released.

12
Report by Financial Stability and Development Council Sub Committee
LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

24
[4.1] THE STANCE OF RBI

The response of RBI to the issues raised by the petitioners, as articulated by Shri Shyam Divan,
learned Senior Counsel, can be summarized as follows:
(i) Virtual currencies do not satisfy the criteria such as store of value, medium of payment
and unit of account, required for being acknowledged as currency.
(ii) Virtual currency exchanges do not have any formal or structured mechanism for
handling consumer disputes/ grievances.

(iii) Virtual currencies are capable of being used for illegal activities due to their
anonymity/pseudo-anonymity.

(iv) Increased use of virtual currencies would eventually erode the monetary stability of the
Indian currency and the credit system.

(v) The impugned decision of RBI is legislative in character and is in the realm of an
economic policy decision taken by an expert body warranting a hands-off approach from
the Court.

(vi) The impugned decision is within the range of wide powers conferred upon RBI under
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the
Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.

(vii) In any case, there is no complete ban on virtual currencies or on the use of distributed
ledger technology by the regulated entities.

[4.2] RATIONALE BEHIND THE CIRCULAR

The impugned decisions were necessitated because in the opinion of RBI, VC transactions
cannot be termed as a payment system, but only peer-to-peer transactions which do not involve a
system provider under the Payments and Settlement Systems Act. Despite this, VC transactions
have the potential to develop as a parallel system of payment. Cross-border nature of the trade in
VCs, coupled with the lack of accountability, has the potential to impact the regulated payments
system managed by RBI. A large constituent of the VC universe does not hold membership of
LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
25
the Petitioner association or is not even accountable for their acts but is material and
instrumental in driving the VC trade.

[4.3] REGULATION WITHIN THE POWERS OF RBI

In Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,13 this court pointed out that
“Reserve Bank of India is an expert body to which the responsibility of monitoring the economic
system of the country is entrusted, under various enactments like the RBI Act, 1934, The Banking
Regulation Act, 1949.”14 Therefore, (i) in the teeth of the statutory scheme of these enactments
(ii) from the way different courts and regulators of different jurisdictions have treated VCs and
(iii) from the very characteristics of VCs, it is clear that they have the potential to interfere with
the matters that RBI has the power to restrict or regulate. Hence, we have no hesitation in
rejecting the first contention of the petitioners that the impugned decision is ultra vires.

[4.4] NO COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER

To constitute colourable exercise of power, the act must have been done in bad faith and the
power must have been exercised not with the object of protecting the regulated entities or the
public in general, but with the object of hitting those who form the target. To constitute malice in
law, the act must have been done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause.
The impugned Circular does not fall under the category of either of them.

Therefore, if RBI takes steps to prevent the gullible public from having an illusion as though
VCs may constitute a valid legal tender, the steps so taken, are actually taken in good faith.

13
Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
14
The Banking and Regulation Act, 1934
LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

26
[4.5] NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE

There is no fundamental right to purchase, sell, transact and/or invest in VCs and that therefore,
the impugned circular cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g) on following grounds-
(i) that at least some of the people are not claiming any right to purchase, sell or
transact in VCs, but claiming a right to provide a platform for facilitating an
activity (of trading in VCs between individuals/entities who want to buy and sell
VCs) which is not yet prohibited by law and
(ii) that in any case the impugned Circular does not per se prohibit the purchase or
sale of VCs

The object of hitting at trading in VCs, is to ensure

(i) consumer protection

(ii) prevention of violation of money laundering laws
(iii) curbing the menace of financing of terrorism and
(iv) safeguarding of the existing monetary/payment/credit system from being polluted.

But hitting the target directly, is not within the domain of RBI and hence the impugned Circular
purportedly seeks to protect only the regulated entities, by ring-fencing them. In the process, it
has hit VC Exchanges and not the actual trading of VCs, though as a consequence, the volume of
transactions in VCs (perhaps through VCEs alone) is stated to have come down. People who
wish to buy and sell VCs can still do so merrily, without using the medium of a VC Exchange
and without seeking to convert the virtual currencies into fiat currency. It is in this context that
the contention revolving around Article 19(1)(g) has to be examined.

CONCLUSION
In the light of above stated facts there is no shade of doubt in the fact, that the circular released
by the RBI is neither ultra vires nor not in accordance of law and since the transaction in the
present case involves the conversion of virtual currencies into fiat currency, it goes in
contravention of the circular and hence will be considered illegal.

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

27
[5]WHETHER VEER HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT,2002 AND SECTION 13 OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE
MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999?

[5.1] Cryptocurrency And Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002:

1. Money laundering is the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically
by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.15 Section 2(1)(v)
includes every non tangible asset under the definition of Property under Prevention of
Money Laundering Act,2002. It can be said that bitcoin can be regulated under PMLA,
2002 as it is a non-tangible asset.

[5.2] Money Laundering under PMLA, 2002:

Money laundering is defined in the PML Act as direct or indirect attempts to indulge in,
knowingly assist or knowingly become a party to, or having actual involvement in, the
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime (including its concealment,
possession, acquisition or use) and projecting or claiming such property as untainted
property. Under Section 3 of the PML Act, the following actions are tantamount to the
offence of money laundering:

[5.1.1] direct or indirect attempt to indulge in any process or activity that is connected with
the proceeds of crime (including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use), with the
intention of projecting or claiming those proceeds of crime as untainted property.

[5.1.2] any direct or indirect assistance in any process or activity connected with the proceeds
of crime (including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use) and projecting or claiming
those proceeds of crime as untainted property, provided that assistance is knowingly given;
and

15 "money laundering". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press
LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

28
[5.1.3] being, directly or indirectly, a knowing party to or being involved in any process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime (including its concealment, possession,
acquisition or use) and projecting or claiming those proceeds of crime as untainted property.16

[5.3] Requirement of authorised broker and verification for transaction in

cryptocurrencies:

2. It can be argued that Veer approached through an inappropriate way to convert his bitcoins
into Indian currency through private broking instead of using authorised platforms like
Zebpay etc. One can withdraw the money from his bank account, only with a KYC
requirement where you need to verify your ID, which is nowhere done in the facts of the case.
Hence the transaction between Rahamat and Veer will amount to an offence under money
laundering.

3. The act of the Veer to obtain money through bitcoins in India should be an offence under
Section 4 of PMLA,2002, as he obtained the converted money through an improper
transaction from an unauthorized private broker and had not followed any of the KYC
verification of PAN Card/ Aadhaar Card.

[5.4] Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 & Cryptocurrencies:

To begin with, according to the Foreign Exchange Management (Exports of Goods &
Services) Regulations, 2015, goods and software are treated in the same way and 'software
means any computer program, database, drawing, design, audio/video signals, any
information by whatever name called in or on any medium other than in or on any physical
medium' and as the FEMA does not provide for an express definition of goods, and the
inclusive definition covers software.

4. On the question that whether certain software would fall within the meaning of goods
under the state sales tax law and it was held by the majority that the term goods used in the

16 Section 3 of PMLA,1999
LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

29
Constitution of India is very wide and under the relevant Act it includes all types of movable
properties irrespective of tangible or intangible and a transaction sale of computer software is
a sale of goods within the meaning of relevant sales tax act.17

It can be observed that cryptocurrencies are intangible and are made, marketed, and stored on
physical servers. They can be bought and sold, transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored, and
possessed. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are used for various purposes like a
store of value, transfer of value, micropayments, and decentralized applications. These features
and the demand for cryptocurrencies for these purposes indicates their utility.
Therefore, it can be concluded that based on the text of the law, cryptocurrencies are closest
to the nature of goods under FEMA and can be classified accordingly, so it will fall in
category of goods under the purview of FEMA.

[5.5] Implications Under Fema For Trading In Cryptocurrency:

Cryptocurrency can be classified as goods and that is why if a person resident in India,18 enters
into transaction with a person resident outside India, it will be considered as export and import
and accordingly, the provisions of FEMA will apply to such transactions. Moreover, under
FEMA, all the transactions with a person resident outside India are categorized as capital and
current account transactions.

 Classifying Cryptocurrency Transaction as Capital Account Transaction

It is defined by sec 2(e) of FEMA as a transaction that alters the assets or liabilities
outside India of persons resident in India or assets or liabilities in India of persons
resident outside of India.

17 Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh

18Section 2(v) of the

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

30
  Classifying Cryptocurrency Transaction as Current Account Transaction
Current Account Transactions are defined by sec 2(j) of the FEMA as a transaction
other than a capital account transaction and list out four categories of the transactions
classified as current account transactions. The trade-in cryptocurrency can be in the
following manner: Category 1- Purchase of Cryptocurrency from a person resident
outside India through foreign exchange on payment by fiat currency to a person resident
outside India or; Category 2- Payment by Cryptocurrency to a person resident outside
India for purchasing goods and services from a person resident outside India; or
Category 3- Payment for Cryptocurrency to a person resident outside India in
consideration for acquiring other cryptocurrencies from persons resident outside India.

5. Therefore, any payment made or received in connection with a transaction of

cryptocurrency by an Indian Resident with a person from any of the above categories will be
considered as payment in the context of foreign trade and would fall under the classification
of 'Current Account Transaction' under the FEMA.19 Veer can be made liable to be tried
under Section 13 of FEMA, 1999 since he dealt with an unauthorised dealer in UAE and
India both.

[5.6] Cross- Border Transactions And Cryptocurrency:

6. When the Cryptocurrency is being transacted outside India by Indian Residents as a mode of
payment of services rendered and goods sold by a non-resident, such transaction is most
certainly to be classified as an export of goods under the Foreign Exchange Management
(Export of Goods and Services) Regulations 2015,20 and the Master Directions on Export
of Goods and Services. These regulations require the full value of any exports to be received
through authorized banking channels only and any set-off import payments to be received
only through a process facilitated through a bank. Therefore, a cross-border transfer by Indian
residents involving cryptocurrency without any fiat currency through an authorized banking
channel violates Export Regulation. Hence it is humbly submitted Veer should be tried for
the offence of violation of export regulation under Section 13 of FEMA.

19 Trading in Virtual Currencies: An analysis under foreign exchange laws of India – Lexology
20 Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2015, FEMA 23(R)/2015-RB.

LATE LALA DIP CHAND NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

31
 PRAYER

In view of the above submissions and averments made on behalf of the petitioner/accused, this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the petition filed by the opposite party,

2. Hold and declare that lodgment of F.I.R and proceedings flowing therefrom valid.

and pass such other order(s), as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioner.

All of which is humbly prayed,

LLDC-001,

Counsels for Respondent.

32