The Jharkhand High Court issued a notable remark regarding cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court highlighted that individuals implicated in PMLA cases, due to their involvement in concealing or using proceeds of crime after the scheduled offense has been committed, may not necessarily need to be accused of the scheduled offense themselves.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court recently made a significant observation regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases. The court noted that individuals involved in PMLA cases, who are implicated after the commission of the scheduled offense by aiding in the concealment or utilization of proceeds of crime, are not necessarily required to be accused of the scheduled offense.
This ruling underscores a nuanced understanding of the PMLA’s application and its implications for individuals who may become entangled in money laundering activities post the initial crime.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad articulated this point clearly, stating,
“… an accused in the PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists.”
This observation emerged from a case involving an application filed under Section 438 read with 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in an ECIR Case. This case was initially registered with the Economic Offence Wing, Delhi, under various sections of the IPC and pertained to offences under Section 3 read with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The case in question involved Veerendra Kumar Ram, a Chief Engineer in the Rural Work Department of Jharkhand, who was alleged to have orchestrated a bribery scheme. The funds from this scheme were reportedly funneled through a Delhi-based Chartered Accountant, Mukesh Mittal (the petitioner), into the accounts of Ram’s family members. The petitioner was accused of facilitating this illicit transfer of funds using accounts belonging to their employees and relatives.
The court, after reviewing the materials against the petitioner, concluded that there was prima facie involvement in the concealment and diversification of Veerendra Kumar Ram’s property/money. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the grave implications of the offense, the court determined that it was not a suitable case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
The court further elaborated,
“This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of anticipatory bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of anticipatory bail.”
Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail applications, stating,
“For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, the applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail.”
The case, is shedding light on the complexities of PMLA enforcement and the legal standards applicable to anticipatory bail in such contexts.
CASE TITLE:
Mukesh Mittal vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement.
READ/DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
