Today, On 7th August, The Supreme Court called on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to enhance the quality of its prosecutions in light of the low conviction rates in money laundering cases. Emphasizing the need for stronger legal strategies, the court stressed that more rigorous and thorough prosecutions are essential for effectively combating financial crimes.
New Delhi: Citing the low conviction rate in money laundering cases, the Supreme Court on Wednesday urged the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to prioritize the quality of prosecution and evidence. Referring to a statement made in Parliament.
A three-judge bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan suggested that the ED undertake scientific investigations to improve the conviction rate. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday that out of 5,297 cases filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the ED between 2014 and 2024, convictions secured in only 40 cases.
Read Also: Delhi Court Takes Cognizance Against kejriwal || DJB Money Laundering Case
The Supreme Court reviewing a bail plea from a businessman in Chhattisgarh, arrested for money laundering related to illegal levies on coal transportation.
The bench advised,
“You need to concentrate on the quality of prosecution and evidence. In all cases where you believe a prima facie case exists, you need to establish those cases in court. Relying on statements from witnesses and affidavits this type of oral evidence may not be reliable in the long term. You should conduct some scientific investigation,”
Raju argued that, unlike statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements made under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are considered as evidence.
At this point, Justice Datta pointed out that Section 19 of the PMLA requires the arresting officer to provide “reasons to believe” to the accused and questioned the ASG on whether he believed the arrest order in the current case justified.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, referenced the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s case, where the Supreme Court ruled that “reasons to believe” and grounds for arrest must be provided to the accused. Rohatgi emphasized that the Supreme Court‘s judgment also stipulates that there must be a necessity for the arrest.
The bench, which previously granted interim bail to Sunil Kumar Agrawal, made that order permanent.