XV The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019

XV The K.K.
Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019
URN: 1529.
XV, The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF GRANICUS
Ms. Aria Dark & Ors.

Versus
The Republic Of Granicus
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 1

XV The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019
Table Of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………….
ISSUE RAISED…………………………………………………………………......
SUMMARY OF AGUMENTS……………………………………………………...
WRITTEN PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………
ISSUE I: Whether Jurisdiction of the State Authorities of Granicus to act in terms of “13. a, b,
and c”…………………………………………………………….
1.1 Proceeds of Crime Act, 2017 is not applicable……………………………….....
1.2 Granicusdon’thave power to arrest, attach and seize
1.3 It isviolative of Article 11, 12 and 13
ISSUE II: Whether Ms. Aria Dark, Mr. Andrew Dark, who was, immediately after his arrest
(for the very first time), named as an “Official Advisor to Ms. Aria Dark” and aircraft Walhala
One has Diplomatic Immunity………………………..
2.1 Aria Dark is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity.
2.2 Andrew Dark is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity
2.3Walhala One is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity
ISSUE III: Whether the Directorate of Investigation has power to investigate into what appeared
to be (on a demurrer) money-laundering outside the territory of
Granicus……………………………………………………………………………..
3.1 Granicus had the no extra territorial jurisdiction over money laundering offences.
3.2 The Directorate of Investigation did not have the power to investigate.

ISSUE IV: Whether there is a common conspiracy among Granician Government Authorities
and of Ms. Aisha Drenner, to take over the activities of WalhalaIndustries, through Drenner
Advisors. ……………………
4.1Element of conspiracy exist………………………………………………………………
4.2 Circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy…………………………………...
Prayer……………………………………………………………………………
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES
Alive Hospitality And Food Private ltd v UoI C/SCA/4171/2012
Amar Singh v State of UP &Ors 175/2016
Arun Kumar Mishra vs Directorate Of Enforcement Crl. M.C. 5508/2014
Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif, 2008 EWHC 2380 (Fam)
Equatorial Guinea v France ICGJ 513 (ICJ 2016)

Fathima Tiles v Sudarsan Trading Co. And Anr (1996) 2 MLJ 580
HDFC Bank limited v Geodsic ltd, Bom HC (2018)
Hollenback v. United States, 987 F.2d 1272, 1278-80 (7th Cir. 1993)
Kaunda and Others vs. President of the Republic of South Africa MANU/SACC/0022/2004
Lipohar v R. , (1999) 200 CLR 485.
MacLeod v Attorney General for New South Wales [1891] AC 455, 458
Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt Ltd v Directorate of Enforcement

Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd v Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement Government
of India -
Ortmann et al v the United States of America CRI-2015-404-000429 [2017] NZHC 189

Parco Sud , Nr. 41849/07 r.g.n.r..
R v. Cook [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113 ;
R v Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654, 11/7/06
R. v. Sakavickas and another [2004] EWCA Crim 2686, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 857
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394
S v. Boekhoud (2011 (2) SACR 124
Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Adjudicating Authority Crl.O.P.Nos.10497
S. S. Lotus [Turkey-France] (1927) PCIJ Ser A
Tech Mahindra Ltd. vs. Joint Director of Enforcement
UoI&Anr v. AzadiBachaoAndolan and Anr (2004) 10 SCC 1
United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330, 1334 (6th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854, 857 (4th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Carr, 25 E3d 1194, 1205 (3d Cir. 1994)
United States v. Cole, 988 F.2d 681,684-85 (7th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Cota, 953 F.2d 753, 760 (2d Cir. 1992)
United States v. Gleave, 786 F Supp. 258,268-69 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
United States v. Jackson, 983 F.2d 757, 767 (7th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313 (2d Cir. 1994)
United States v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1411 (7th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Saget, 991 F2d 702, 713 (1 th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Savage, 67 F.3d 1435, 1440 (9th Cir. 1995)
Vodafone international Holding BV v. UoI 2012 6 SCC 613
B. OTHER AUTHORITIES

Graham Virgo, Laundering Conspiracy, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Nov.,
2006), pp. 482-484
J. R. Spencer, Conspiracy and Recklessness, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Jul.,
2005), pp. 279-281
Peter Alldridge, Money Laundering and Globalization, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 35, No.
4 (Dec., 2008), pp. 437-463
Barrett Atwood; Molly McConville, Money Laundering, 36 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 901 (1999)
C. CONSTITUTIONS
The Constitution of Granicus
The Constitution of India
D. STATUTES
Proceeds Of Crime Act 2017
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
Proceeds of Crime Act 2000
E. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
1. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
2. The Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 (18.04.1961)
3. The United Nations Convention [against Transnational Organized Crime] (15.11.2000).
F. BOOK
Law on prevention of money laundering in India By Mehanathan, M C
The Prevention of money laundering act, 2002 ( 15 of 2003) by Arora, Kirshan.
International Efforts to Combat Money Laundering By William C Gilmore

STATEMENT OF FACTS
HISTORY
Islander is a country located in an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean and run as a dictatorship
masked as an oligarchy. It entered into Double Tax Avoidance Agreements with almost all
nations of the world and fashioned as a tax haven with 0.4 percent tax rate on corporations, and
minimal regulatory compliance. The former President of Islander, Mr. Tyereus Dark nationalized
the large sugar plantations and used it for the development of specialized ‘financial zones’
housing world class financial institutions and related facilities. Mr. Dark set up an opaque
banking system in Islander, guaranteeing secrecy and support to national and international
investors seeking discreet banking services. Islander also offered citizenship for high net worth
individuals who made large investments in Islander. Granicus is a land-locked nation in the
Central Asia. Islander was a colony of Granicus. It is a a democratic federation and a secular
republic. The present Head of State of Granicus, Ms. Aisha Drenner, came to power in 2016,
after her fight against corruption, terrorism, and money-laundering. The citizens of Islander and
Granicus are similar not in just appearance but also share common ancestry. Such common
ancestry is traceable to the Harzinnian colonization of large parts of Asia, including Granicus.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Aria Dark took became head of Islander, supported by a large number of heads of banks
after her father’s death and claimed to be a citizen of Islander and the political successor of her
father. Drenner Financials a companywhich is run by Ms. Drenner’s son and daughter was
previously controlled and managed by Ms. Drenner herself, prior to her having been elected as
President of Granicus. Drenner Advisors, a company incorporated in Islander, is said to
indirectly through a complex network of companies be the holding company of Drenner
Financial. Ms. Dark presided over a huge disinvestment policy in 2014 which formally
commenced in 2016. A company by the name of Walhala Industries, headed by Ms. Dark’s
nephew, Mr. Andrew Dark, began taking over a large number of government companies that
were targeted for disinvestment including Airlines and the Hotel Industries of Islander.
EVENTS RELATING TO THE CHARGE OF MONEY LAUNDERING

Investigative news reports in Islander which originated from the investigation reports in Granicus
indicated that Walhala Industries was actually associated with Drenner Advisors and Ms. Aria
Dark and Ms. Aisha Drenner were in fact related by blood. It also indicated that a large amount
of monies obtained through dubious means by Ms. Aria Dark and her associates in the Islander
Government, and other associates linked to even the Granician Government, were being routed
through Drenner Advisors into Walhala Industries between 2012-2015, which was then being
used to make investments in the Airlines and the Hotel Industries of Islander in 2016. Ms. Aria
Dark decided to make an official visit to Granicus to lodge a diplomatic protest in Granicus
where Mr Andrew Dark got arrested, WalhalaOne was seized and the bank account transaction
was seized.
ISSUE RAISED
I.
Whether Jurisdiction of the State Authorities of Granicus to act in terms of “13. a, b, and c”
II.
Whether Ms. Aria Dark, Mr. Andrew Dark, who was, immediately after his arrest (for the very
first time), named as an “Official Advisor to Ms. Aria Dark” and aircraft Walhala One has
Diplomatic Immunity
III.
Whether the Directorate of Investigation has power to investigate into what appeared to be (on a
demurrer) money-laundering outside the territory of Granicus
IV.

Whether there is a common conspiracy among Granician Government Authorities and of Ms.
Aisha Drenner, to take over the activities of Walhala Industries, through Drenner Advisors
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Granicus don’t has the jurisdiction

The state of Granicus doesn’t have jurisdiction in instant case as in several landmark
judgements it has been held that a country can’t exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over
internal matters.
2. Ms. Aria Dark, Mr. Andrew Darkand aircraft Walhala One have diplomatic
immunity
Ms. Aria Dark and Mr. andre Dark along with Walhala one have diplomatic immunity as
they are the diplomats representimbg there state on a diplomatic mission thus they should
be given diplomatic immunity.
3. The Directorate of Investigation does not have the power to investigate money-
laundering outside the territory of Granicus.
The Directorate of Investigation had no power to investigate money laundering in Islander as

Granicus had no extra territorial jurisdiction over money laundering offences . Proceeds of Crime
Act, 2017 of Granicus under which the investigation , prosecution of money laundering in
Islander was conducted cannot have retrospective effect to investigate an offence of 2012-15.
Such shall be voilative of Granicus’ very constitution. It is even contented by Islander as both
Granicus and Islander are both signatories to the United Nation Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime the investigation should have been carried in the way prescribed
under it, which was the same here. Thus The Directorate of Investigation had no right to
investigate money laundering outside the territory of Granicus.
4. There is a common conspiracy among Granician Government Authorities and of Ms.

Aisha Drenner to take over the activities of Walhala Industries, through Drenner Advisors.
Section1 (iv) states that when any person directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly
assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime has committed the offence of money laundering. Section1 (iii) includes
conspiracy as schedule offence. Since the dubious means of monies were routed from Granicus
into Walhala Industries through Drenner Advisor which is in Islander. Prior to becoming head of

Granicus before 2016 Drenner Financial was run by Ms Aisha Drenner during the period in
which monies were routed i.e 2012-2015.Drenner Advisor which is a holding company of
Drenner Financial through complex network are sham and is being used fpr money laundering
purpose.
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
Issue I: Wether the state authorities of granicus had jurisdiction to act in terms
of 13 a, b and c.
1.1The state of granicus acted beyond jurisdiction
In the landmark judgement of France v turkey it was held that It does not, however, follow that
international law prohibits a State from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case
which relates to acts which have taken place abroad, and in which it cannot rely on some permissive
rule of international law. Such a view would only be tenable if international law contained a general
prohibition to States to extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to
persons, property and acts outside their territory, and if, as an exception to this general prohibition, it
allowed States to do so in certain specific cases. But this is certainly not the case under international law
as it stands at present. Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that States may not
extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts
outside their territory, it leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion, which is only limited
in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases, every State remains free to adopt the
principles which it regards as best and most suitable. This discretion left to States by international law
explains the great variety of rules which they have been able to adopt without objections or complaints
on the part of other States …In these circumstances all that can be required of a State is that it should
not overstep the limits which international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to
exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty.”
No Country can exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction unless the crime or Act effects the country whereas
in the case in hand the Styate of granicus was not effected and still it exercised its jurisdiction over Ms
Andrew dark .

1.2 The proceeds of Crime Act, 2017 is violative of Article 12 (2) of the constitution of granicus
In the case of Dheeraj KanwarVs. State of Himachal Pradesh1 it was held that ex post facto laws can not
be applicable to crimes occurring after the enactment of such law. In various other judgement such as
Rattan Lal v State of Punjab2 similar judgement was given. Similarly in the case in hand the proceeds of
crime act is a mere example of ex post facto law and therefore it can not be implemented in the present
case. In Exchange Board of India v. Ajay Agarwal3 it was held that no laws can have retrospective effect
as it violates the right s of individual and also increase punishment on them.
1.3 Article 13 and Article 11 of the constitution of granicus are violated.
Article 11 of the Granicus states that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law. In the case in hand the rights of Mr. Andrew Dark have been
violated as he had been detained without any effective law for the crim that he has been alleged of and
moreover the state of granicus has also violated aticle 13 of the constitution which states that the state
shall not deny any person equality before law within the territory of granicus however it is clearly
eevident that by not initiating any investigation against Ms. Sisha Drenner they have surely violated such
right grnated by the constitution.
Issue II: Wether Ms. Aria Dark and separately Mr. Andrew Dark who was
immediately after his arrest for the very first time named as official advisor to
Ms. Aria Dark and the aircraft Walhala One are entitled to diplomatic
immunity?
2.1 Aria Dark is entitled to Diplomatic Immunity

It is humbly submitted that Implementation of the Vienna Convention has greatly changed the
substantive legal framework defining foreign diplomats' privileges and immunities. More re
1
MANU/HP/3083/2010
2
MANU/SC/0072/1964
3
MANU/SC/0137/2010

cently, the Department of State has adopted policies and regulations that change in important
ways how it handles allegations that foreign diplomats have committed crimes.4
Article 1 For the purpose of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the
meanings hereunder assigned to them:
(a) The “head of the mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of
acting in that capacity;
(b) A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the
mission;
In the case in hand Mr. Aria Dark is on a Diplomatic mission and is to be regarded as the
head of the mission. Consequtively her actions are immune under the umberella of The
Vienna convention on diplomatic immunity, 1961.
The very famous Pinochet case has laid down that the diplomatic agent is screened the whole
time-even when engaged in his post-by a protective umbrella which covers official
diplomatic acts. 5This protective umbrella is not needed as long as the person of the
diplomatic agent is anyway clothed by an overall mantle of immunity, that is, as long as the
diplomatic mission lasts. 6
A diplomatic agent is "the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the
mission. Under the VCDR, diplomatic agents are granted absolute immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of a receiving state-that is, they cannot be prosecuted for any official or
private acts.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relation in this regard has stated that under article 31
A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.
The first condition for the applicability of diplomatic immunity ratione materiae is that the
act in question be official in its character. An act is official if it is performed by an organ of a
State in his official capacity, so that it can be imputed to the State and regarded as an act of
State. That is to say, only when a diplomatic agent acts as an arm, or serves as a mouthpiece,
of the sending State can his act be considered as official.Attention ought to be drawn in this
context to the judgment delivered by Lord Hewart C.J. in Dickinson v. Del Solar7 Diplomatic
privilege does not import immunity from legal liability, but only exemption from local
4
Diplomatic Immunity: Recent Developments in Law and Practice Author(s): David A. Jones, Jr. and Jonathan T.
Fried Source: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 85 (APRIL 17-20,
1991), pp. 261-270
5
78 WASH. U. L.Q. 1583, 1584 (2000
6
International and Comparative Law Quarterly [VOL. 15, Diplomatic Immunity from Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae
Author(s): Yoram Dinstein)
7
[1930] 1 K.B. 376 .

jurisdiction. Lord HIewart's statement was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in one
of its latest judgments Empson v. Smith 8Here Diplock L.J. pronounced: "It is elementary
law that diplomatic immunity is not immunity from legal liability but immunity from suit
This conclusion is not only in keeping with the letter and spirit of Article 39 (2) of the Vienna
Convention, as quoted above, but it conforms to the broad principle expressed in Article 41 (1):
Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such
privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state.
In two seminal cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and a U.S. federal district court
recognized the immunity of the Congo's Foreign Minister Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi 9 The
Court observed at the outset that in international law it is firnlly established that certain holders
of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Governmet and Minister for
Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal. Ms.
Aria Dark being the head of the state such immunity should be granted to her.
In customary international law, the immunities accorded to Ministers for Foreign Affairs are not
granted for their personal benefit. but to ensure the effective performance of their functions on
behalf of their respective States.
In Mugabe. Tachiona v. Mugabe 10The Court finds that in this respect no distinction call be
drawn between acts perfonned by a Minister for Foreign Affairs in an "official" capacity and
those claimed to have been perfonlled in a "private capacity", or, for that matter, between acts
performed before the person conceined assumed office as Minister for Foreign Affairs and acts
committed during the period of office. Thus, if a Minister for Foreign Affairs is arrested in
another State on a criminal charge, he or she is clearly thereby prevented from exercising the
functions of his or her office. .
The most powerful justidication for diplomatic immunity is func tional necessity: in the absence
of such immunity, diplomats would not be able to effectively represent their countries, and
international relations in turn would suffer. The leading treaty in this field, the Vi enna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, endorses the idea of func tional necessity by explaining
that the treaty's goal is to develop friendly relations between nations and stressing that the
purpose of diplomatic immunity is "to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of
diplomatic missions11
8
[1965] 2 All E.R. 881, 885-886.
9
2000 (Congo v. Belg.), 41 I.L.M. 536, 549-50, 551)
10
Tachiona v. Mugabe, 169 F. Supp. 2d 259
11
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, supra note 14, preamble, 23 U.S.T. at 3230, 500 U.N.T.S.)

Head-of-state immunity allows a nation's leader to engage in his official duties, including travel
to foreign coun tries, without fearing arrest, detention, or other treatment inconsis tent with his
role as the head of sovereign state. 12
It is a basic principle of international law that one sovereign state does not adjudicate on the
conduct of a foreign state because the foreign state is entitledto procedural immunity from the
processes of the forum state. The head of state is entitled to same immunity as that of the state
itself.
In Spain, the Na tional Court decided in 1999 that it had no authority to prosecute sit ting Cuban
head of state Fidel Castro.13
Similarly, the United States has denied immunity to former heads of state, Tachiona v.
Mugabe14 (recognizing the immunity of Zimbabwe's sitting president, Robert Mugabe); Saltany
v. Reagan15 (finding sitting British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher immune from suit in the
United States) but has never abro gated the immunity of a sitting head of state or head of
government. Furthermore, even though some international agreements have called for stripping
away head-of-state immunity, and although some coun tries have considered taking jurisdiction
over foreign leaders, it is sig nificant that no nation has yet gone so far as to actually pass
judgment against a sitting head of state.
In the case of Doe v. United States U.S16 courts have been reluctant to play too great of a role in
deciding when to hold foreign leaders accountable for their acts, recognizing that the decision to
deny the immunity of a foreign head of state can cause serious international political
ramifications.
In the recent case of United States States v. Noriega17, one can discern that U.S. courts will
recognize the immunity of foreign heads of state for private unof ficial acts, even when the
executive branch does not suggest immunity, when three conditions are met:
(1) the person seeking immunity is a sitting head of state;
(2) the United States recognizes that person as the legitimate head of state;""' and
(3) the foreign state has not waived the immunity.
12
Sharon 'War Crimes' Hearing Delayed, BBC News, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/world/
middle_east/1577630.stm (Oct. 3, 2001) (on file)
13
Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity Author(s): Michael A. Tunks Source:
Duke Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Dec., 2002), pp. 651-682)
14
169 F. Supp. 2d 259, 288, 296-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
15
702 F. Supp. 319, 320 (D.D.C. 1988)
16
Doe v. United States :: 487 U.S. 201 (1988)
17
United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (SD Fla. 1990)

In Alicog v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia18 it was held that head-of-state immunity is primarily an
attribute of state sovereignty, not an individual right. Granting immunity to King Fahd of Saudi
Arabia and suggesting that Saudi Arabia had not waived.
Diplock LJ said in Empson v. Smith19, that dip lomatic immunity is not immunity from legal
liability but immunity from suit. If authority is needed for this it is to be found in Dickinson v.
Del Solar20. In that case Lord Hewart CJ said, Diplomatic agents are not, in virtue of their
privileges as such, immune from legal liability for any wrongful acts. The accurate statement is
that they are not liable to be sued in the English courts unless they submit to the jurisdiction.
In Republic of the Congo v. France21 The petitioner claimed immunity for its head of state
which was taken into consideration on the ground that “violation of the criminal immunity of a
foreign Head of State ⎯ an international customary rule recognized by the jurisprudence of the
Court”.
2.2 Mr. Andrew Dark is entitled to Diplomatic Immunity under Article 37

The Vienna convention on diplomatic relation, 1961 has immuned the family members of the
diplomatic agent. It has in the widest term possible stated under article 37 that
A family member of the diplomatic agent who forms a part of the household and who is not a
national of the receiving state shall enjoy priviledges and immunities under this convention.
In regards to Article 37 of the said convention the judgement given In Assurantie Compagnie
Excelsior v. Smith 22 and Appuhamy v. Gregory 23 is of utmost importance, wherein the rule was
drawn that diplomatic immunity extends to family, suite and servants.
Extension of the privileged status at least to families of the diplomatic staff is a rule of
international law universally accepted by jurists24
In the article Diplomatic privileges and immunities25 it was contended that the Minister's
exemption extends, not only to his wife and children, but to his parents and other members, such
as brothers 100 and nieces, and possibly household guests.
18
860 F. Supp. 379, 382 (S.D. Tex. 1994)
19
1966] 1 Q.B. 426, 438;
20
[1930] 1 K.B. 376, 380
21
ICJ, 2002.
22
Assurantie Compagnie Excelsior v. Smith, 1923.
23
Ceylon, 1953), 55 New Law Reports (Ceylon) 235; [1955] Int.L.R. 541-543
24
Brazil, 1956) [1956] Int.L.R. 429

Andrew Dark being the family member of Ms. Aria Dark is entitled to such immunity
A host state may voluntarily declare a family member immune to avoid rocking the boat-not out
of a sense of legal obligation but on the basis of international comity. When a family member
arrives in the receiving state as part of the head of state's entourage during an official visit, or is
acting in his or her own official capacity, extending the same privileges and immunities as are
extended to a head of state seems more in line with a legal obligation.
In Kline v. Kanek 26 a U.S. court extended immunity to a head of state's family member despite
acknowledging that the conduct at issue involved a private act.
2.3 Walhala One is entitled to Diplomatic immunity.

The vienna convention on Diplomatic relations 1961 has expressly stated under article 22 that
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not
enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
In the instant case the property of the diplomatic agent which is also the official transport of the
diplomatic mission shall be inviolable on such grounds aforementioned.
In Timor-Leste v. Australia27 it was found that The inviolability of State papers and documents
has been an old concern in diplomatic relations as from the reference of the 1946 U.N.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to the “inviolability for all
papers and documents”
Hence, it is requested on the basis of aforementioned grounds that Diplomatic immunity be

granted to Aria Dark, Mr Andrew Dark and the aircraft walhala one.
25
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: The Retinue and Families of the Diplomatic Staff Author(s): Clifton E.
Wilson Source: The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1965), pp. 1265-1295
26
154 (685 F. Supp. 386 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)
27
ICJ, 2013

Issue III: Whether the Directorate of Investigation had the power to

investigate into what appeared to be (on a demurrer) money-laundering
outside the territory of Granicus?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Granicusdid not have the jurisdiction to
over the international crime of money laundering in Islander, thus conferring no power on the
Directorate of Investigation for external investigation. It is submitted that the subsequent action
of Investigation is voilative as Granicus did not have the extra territorial jurisdiction over the
offence [3.1] and The Directorate of Investigation had no power to investigate [3.2].
[3.1]Granicus had no extra territorial jurisdiction over money laundering

offences.
1.All crime is local. The jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is
committed.28Granicus cannot exercise its jurisdiction as the offence is committed and the
investment of proceeds of crime is in Islander. “The principle of the sovereign equality of states
generally prohibits extraterritorial application of domestic law”.29 Islander’s sovereignty is
affected by Granicus investigating the money laundering crime committed in Islander itself. The
International crime of money laundering to be investigated or prosecuted shall occur within its
very own territory.30
2. In the Case of S. S. Lotus [Turkey-France]31 stated that the ordinary principle of international
law is that jurisdiction of states is territorial except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from
international custom or convention. Granicus has no extra territorial jurisdiction over the
transnational money laundering committed in another territory i.e., Islander.
28
MacLeod v Attorney General for New SouthWales [1891] AC 455, 458
29
R v. Cook [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113 ;Kaunda and Others vs. President of the Republic of South Africa
MANU/SACC/0022/2004.
30
S v. Boekhoud (2011 (2) SACR 124 ; Lipohar v R, (1999) 200 CLR 485.
31
(1927) PCIJ Ser A

3.The Proceeds of Crime Act under which the money laundering offence is investigated and
prosecuted has come into effect from 2017, though relying on the investigative reports the crime
of money laundering has rooted its way from Granicus and Islander from 2012-15.32 The above
33
mentioned Act is retrospectively applied which is voilative of its own Constitution. Applying
any Act retrospectively would be denying the petitioner or appellant of Protection in respect of
conviction for offences.34No person shall be prosecuted for a law which was not in effect on the
date of commission of crime.35 Such law is bad as the provisions of the Act have been applied
retrospectively36 and is in violation of the mandate Article 12 (ii) of the Granicus Constitution.
37
Islander cannot be prosecuted under this Act as it is just a Ex-facto law.38
[3.2] The Directorate of Investigation did not have the power to investigate.
4. The Directorate of Investigation confers no power on the Granicus to carry with sole
investigation. Money Laundering invariably involves financial flows across transnational or
international borders'. It has wide ranging economic, financial and criminal implications both in
the domestic and international contexts. This multidimensional and transnational/international
crime also involves actors from multiple jurisdictions across the globe in the role of criminals,
victims, regulators and law enforcers.39Granicus and Islander has adopted the UN initiative
40
against money laundering by being the signatories of the convention. Islander contents that
Granicus must have abided to Article 4of the Convention which grants it sovereignty.41
5. Granicus should have opted for mutual legal assistance from Islander for the Investigation. For
the purpose of transnational money laundering investigation and prosecution, request
32
PARA : 9, Page 4, STATEMENT OF FACTS, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019.
33
Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd v Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement Government of India
34
Article 12 of the Granicus Constitution(Annexed to fact sheet)
35
Tech Mahindra Ltd. vs. Joint Director of Enforcement Writ Petition No.17525/2014.
36
Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Adjudicating Authority (Pmla) – Madras high court : Crl.O.P.Nos.10497
37
Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt Ltd v Directorate of Enforcement;Arun Kumar Mishra vs Directorate Of
Enforcement
38
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394
39
THE GLOBAL LEGAL REGIME ON ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING : A. Francis Julian
40
United Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes
41
Equatorial Guinea v France

ofExtradition42 is to be sent by the requesting State to the requested State for conducting an
43
investigation, prosecution beyond its jurisdiction. Such request should have been made by
Granicus to Islander .Granicus and Islander could carry on Joint Investigation 44 and even if
45
Islander can decline the request at its discretion on the ground of absence of dual criminality.
The act of Granicus was against Islander’s sovereignty and hence any such against shall be
against the convention , of which both the state are signatories. The Convention also grants
special investigation techniques for transnational money laundering.46Granicus should have
carried the investigation as prescribed by the convention and not voilative of the convention. .
ISSUE IV: Whether there is a common conspiracy among Granician Government

Authorities and of Ms. Aisha Drenner, to take over the activities of Walhala Industries,
through Drenner Advisors
It is humble submitted before this Hon‟ble court that there is 4.1 element of common
conspiracy and 4.2circumstancial evidence proves that malafides by theGranician Government
Authorities and of Ms. Aisha Drenner, to take over the activities of Walhala Industries, through
Drenner Advisors on the pretext that the laundering activities alleged by the Directorate of
Industries on the part of Walhala Industries, are said to have originated from monies belonging to
Drenner Advisors.
4.1 Element of Conspiracy
1.It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble court that there is a common conspiracy as the
Granician Government Authorities and of Ms. Aisha Drenner wanted to take over the activities
ofWalhala Industries laundered monies belonging to Drenner Advisor.
47
Circumstancialevidencialshows knowledge. Since the disinvesting policy came into effect in
islander in 201648, same year when Aisha Drenner came into power and the fact that Aisha
Drenner wanted to suppressed such proposed action at the time of the red-carpet welcome49
shows that she wanted to prevent the dissemination of information. As the investigating reports
stated that a large amount of monies obtained through dubious means are linked to even the
42
UNCTOC : Article 16 : Extradition
43
Ortmann et al v the United States of America CRI-2015-404-000429
[2017] NZHC 189
44
Article 19 : Joint Investigation
45
Article 18: Mutual Legal Assistance clause (9)
46
Parco Sud ,Nr. 41849/07 r.g.n.r..
47
United States v. Carr, 25 E3d 1194, 1205 (3d Cir. 1994)
48
7, Page 3, STATEMENT OF FACTS, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019.
49

Granician Government which were being routed through Drenner Advisors into Walhala
Industries between 2012-2015, which was then being used to make investments in the Airlines
and the Hotel Industries of Islander in 2016.50 The act of money laundering is done with the
intention to conceal money or other assets from the State so as to prevent its loss through
taxation, judgement enforcement or blatant confiscation and Islander is Tax haven for many
countries.
2.Money laundering includes direct or indirect indulge; assist, be a party or to actually involved
knowingly in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of the crime and projecting it
as untainted property. There is actual involvement in any process or activity connected with
proceeds of crime.51In R. v. Sakavickas and another52 the defendants were prosecuted for
conspiring to commit an offence of money-laundering. The prosecution charged the defendants
with conspiracy to commit it (obtusely, by the way since making an agreement was in fact the
actusreus of the complete offence). And for conspiracy, unlike the completed offence, suspicion
was not enough and actual knowledge must be proved. This argument the Court of Appeal
rejected: if recklessness would do for the completed offence, it would for conspiracy as well. In
law ‘suspecting’ means that “there is a possibility, which is more than fanciful that the relevant
facts exist. A vague feeling of unease would havesufficed.”53
3. Intent is a fact-specific inquiryoften closely related to the defendant's knowledge that the
transaction is designed to conceal information about the proceeds of criminal activity. In United
States v. Savage54 the defendant instructed people to transfer money overseas to create "aura of
legitimacy" sufficient to create circumstantial evidence of intent to promote fraudulent scheme.
Government need not prove defendant's intent was to conceal or disguise proceeds of an
unlawful activity; only that defendant had knowledge that funds represented proceeds of some
form of illegal activity.55
4.2 Circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy
4. It is contended Since prior to 2016 when Ms. Aisha Drenner came into power she runs the
company Drenner Financials which is run by Ms. Drenner’s son and daughter56 and as the
investigating reports stated that that a large amount of monies obtained through dubious means
50
51
Alive Hospitality And Food Private ltd v UoI C/SCA/4171/2012
52
[2004] EWCA Crim 2686, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 857
53
R v Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654, 11/7/06
54
67 F.3d 1435, 1440 (9th Cir. 1995); Hollenback v. United States, 987 F.2d 1272, 1278-80 (7th Cir. 1993); United
States v. Cole, 988 F.2d 681,684-85 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jackson, 983 F.2d 757, 767 (7th Cir. 1993);
United States v. Saget, 991 F2d 702, 713 (1 th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cota, 953 F.2d 753, 760 (2d Cir. 1992);
United States v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1411 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330, 1334 (6th Cir.
1992); United States v. Gleave, 786 F Supp. 258,268-69 (W.D.N.Y. 1992; United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313 (2d Cir.
1994);
55
United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854, 857 (4th Cir. 1992)
56

which is even linked to theGranician Government, were being routed through Drenner Advisors
into Walhala Industries between 2012-2015. It is implied here that Ms. Aisha Drenner through
Drenner Financial routed monies to DrennerAdvisior when she herself runs the company and
that monies is being used to make investments in the Airlines and the Hotel Industries of Islander
in 2016 when she became the head of the Granicus.It is contended that Drenner Advisor and
Drenner Financial are sham to carry on the money laundering activities. They are being used as
shell companies and as the investigating reports states that they are used for rounting monies
obtained through dubious means and sending it to Islander to avoid taxation as Islander is
considered as tax haven.
5. When the control of the company is under the wrongdoer and there is impropriety i.e. use or
misuse of the company by them as a device or façade to conceal their wrongdoings corporate veil
of the company is pierced.57 Even if two companies are different the persons in control of them
are the same.58In a proper case of lifting of corporate veil it would be proper to say that the
parent company and subsidiary company form one entity. The legal position of any company
incorporated abroad is that its powers, functions and responsibilities are governed by the law of
its incorporation.59
6. In Amar Singh v State of UP &Ors60 the petitioner while holding the office of chairman,
misused his position and awarded various Government contractsworth thousands of crores to
companies owned and controlled by him and he also received some kickbacks in the form of
commission. The petitioner also indulged in money laundering business by creating web of shell
companies and also conspired with Directors, officials and Statutory authority.InUoI&Anr v.
AzadiBachaoAndolan and Anr61india and Mauritius which are the part of Indo-Mauritius Double
Taxation Avoidance Convention there were shell companies incorporated in Mauritius and
operating through Mauritius whose main purpose was to investment in India.In HDFC Bank
limited v Geodsic ltd62 the directors of the respondent company hatched a criminal conspiracy by
creating a web of shell companies in various countries with the mala fide intention to siphon off
the money through fictitious dealings.
PRAYER
57
Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif, 2008 EWHC 2380 (Fam)
58
Fathima Tiles v Sudarsan Trading Co. And Anr
59
Vodafone international Holding BV v. UoI 2012 6 SCC 613
60
175/2016
61
2003, SC.
62
2018, Bom HC.

In the light of the facts stated above, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is
most humbly prayed before this Hon‟ble Supreme Court Of Granicus that it may be pleased to:
1) To Hold that Granicus don’t have State Jurisdiction for the arrest, attach and seizer
2) Declare that Ms. Aria Dark, Mr Andrew Dark and Walhala One aircraft has diplomatic
immunity.
3) Declare that Directorate of Investigation doesn’t have any power to investigate in money
laundering outside Granicus
4) To Hold Ms. Aisha Drenner and Granicus Government liable for common conspiracy.
OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And
for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

XV The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

XV The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XV The K.K.

Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019

XV, The K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF GRANICUS

Ms. Aria Dark & Ors.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 2

4.2 Circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy…………………………………...

Alive Hospitality And Food Private ltd v UoI C/SCA/4171/2012

Amar Singh v State of UP &Ors 175/2016

Arun Kumar Mishra vs Directorate Of Enforcement Crl. M.C. 5508/2014

Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif, 2008 EWHC 2380 (Fam)

Equatorial Guinea v France ICGJ 513 (ICJ 2016)

HDFC Bank limited v Geodsic ltd, Bom HC (2018)

Lipohar v R. , (1999) 200 CLR 485.

Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt Ltd v Directorate of Enforcement

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 3

Ortmann et al v the United States of America CRI-2015-404-000429 [2017] NZHC 189

R v. Cook [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113 ;

R v Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654, 11/7/06

S v. Boekhoud (2011 (2) SACR 124

Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Adjudicating Authority Crl.O.P.Nos.10497

S. S. Lotus [Turkey-France] (1927) PCIJ Ser A

Tech Mahindra Ltd. vs. Joint Director of Enforcement

UoI&Anr v. AzadiBachaoAndolan and Anr (2004) 10 SCC 1

United States v. Carr, 25 E3d 1194, 1205 (3d Cir. 1994)

United States v. Cole, 988 F.2d 681,684-85 (7th Cir. 1993)

United States v. Gleave, 786 F Supp. 258,268-69 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)

United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313 (2d Cir. 1994)

United States v. Saget, 991 F2d 702, 713 (1 th Cir. 1993)

United States v. Savage, 67 F.3d 1435, 1440 (9th Cir. 1995)

Vodafone international Holding BV v. UoI 2012 6 SCC 613

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 4

The Constitution of Granicus

The Constitution of India

Proceeds Of Crime Act 2017

Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Proceeds of Crime Act 2000

1. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

3. The United Nations Convention [against Transnational Organized Crime] (15.11.2000).

Law on prevention of money laundering in India By Mehanathan, M C

The Prevention of money laundering act, 2002 ( 15 of 2003) by Arora, Kirshan.

International Efforts to Combat Money Laundering By William C Gilmore

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 5

EVENTS RELATING TO THE CHARGE OF MONEY LAUNDERING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 7

1. Granicus don’t has the jurisdiction

The Directorate of Investigation had no power to investigate money laundering in Islander as

4. There is a common conspiracy among Granician Government Authorities and of Ms.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 9

1.3 Article 13 and Article 11 of the constitution of granicus are violated.

2.1 Aria Dark is entitled to Diplomatic Immunity

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 12

(1) the person seeking immunity is a sitting head of state;

(3) the foreign state has not waived the immunity.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 13

2.2 Mr. Andrew Dark is entitled to Diplomatic Immunity under Article 37

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Page 14