The Supreme Court plans to review the PMLA 2022 verdict following requests for legal examination. The decision comes after discussion regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act’s provisions. This review aims to address concerns and ensure clarity in the law’s enforcement.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing of several petitions seeking a comprehensive review of its July 2022 judgment, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Legislation has been at the center of heated debates over its stringent measures against money laundering. The delay was granted to allow the Central Government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) additional time to prepare their responses.
Read Also: Supreme Court Intervention Sought in High-Profile Sippy Sidhu Murder Case
The decision to postpone was made by a bench that included Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who expressed regret over not being able to conclude the matter within his tenure due to his upcoming retirement.
“I am letting go of the matter with a heavy heart,” Justice Kaul remarked, highlighting the complexity and significance of the case.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, has postponed the hearing for two months. This move ensures that the case will be reassigned to a new bench, necessitating a fresh round of submissions from all parties involved.
Understanding Money Laundering
Money laundering, as defined by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002, entails the direct or indirect attempt to engage in, aid, or be involved in concealing, acquiring, possessing, or utilizing proceeds of crime, presenting them as untainted property, or asserting them as such in any form. According to the Act, this process is continuous until the individual directly or indirectly benefits from the illicit gains by concealing, possessing, acquiring, using, or projecting them as legitimate assets.
Read Also: Amit Shah Commits: Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) Implementation Before 2024 Polls
Key Provisions of the PMLA 2002:
- The PMLA 2002 stipulates rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to seven years and imposes fines for money laundering offenses. The penalty can escalate to ten years if the proceeds of crime exceed one crore rupees.
- Entities such as banks, financial institutions, and intermediaries are mandated by the PMLA 2002 to maintain transaction records, report suspicious activities to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), and adhere to KYC (Know Your Customer) norms.
- The Act permits the attachment and confiscation of assets linked to money laundering at any stage of investigation, with the government authorized to sell confiscated property.
- The PMLA, 2002 facilitates international collaboration in investigating and prosecuting money laundering crimes. The government is empowered to forge agreements with other nations for mutual legal assistance and information exchange.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench pointed out the need for the Center and ED to clarify the object behind shifting the burden of proof onto the accused in bail considerations under the PMLA. This aspect of the law mandates that for an accused to be granted bail, the court must be satisfied that they are not guilty of the alleged offenses, a stipulation that has sparked controversy over its reversal of the presumption of innocence.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi,
Representing the petitioners, criticized the adjournment as “unfortunate,” arguing that it reflects a pattern of delays.
Justice Kaul, in response, hinted at the broader implications of judicial review, stating,
“A judgment is an opinion that can always change in the future because judges also have a duty to keep thinking and evolving.”
The bench referred the matter to a larger bench of five judges, should it be determined that the 2022 verdict warrants reconsideration. The suggestion comes from the opposition, the Center and ED, who have contested the proceedings before the three-judge bench.
PMLA 2022 judgement had previously affirmed the ED’s abuse of his powers, including summoning individuals, making arrests, conducting raids, and attaching properties, under the Money Laundering Act.
