Topic
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is India's primary law to combat money laundering, empowering enforcement agencies like the ED to investigate, attach assets, and prosecute linked predicate offences.
The Bombay High Court ruled that an arrest under PMLA Section 19 is impermissible when Section 50 proceedings have already been initiated on the same material, quashing three remand orders and directing the petitioner's immediate release. The decision reinforces procedural safeguards against parallel coercive actions by the Enforcement Directorate.
The Madras HC upheld writ courts' review jurisdiction under Article 226 via HC Writ Rules, ruling that a proposed accused has no pre-FIR hearing right. It also held the State may withdraw a legally untenable review without breaching rule of law, bolstering prosecutorial discretion in PMLA and corruption matters.
The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹25 crore SAFEMA attachment, holding that the Enforcement Directorate failed to establish any nexus between the appellants' legitimate pre-existing business transactions and the alleged YES Bank-DHFL proceeds of crime. The ruling clarifies that lawful business dealings routed through banking channels cannot be presumed as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a direct link to the scheduled offence, protecting genuine commercial transactions from overbroad attachment.
Granting bail, the Court held that assets acquired before scheduled offence period cannot be treated as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a temporal nexus to alleged criminal activity. Court found no such link for the petitioner’s overseas assets.
The Delhi High Court struck down an Appellate Tribunal interim order that sought to channel frozen proceeds of crime to settle liabilities of another company, holding such diversion beyond the scope of Section 42 of the PMLA. This bars authorities from using seized assets to satisfy third-party debts, affecting enforcement actions against money-laundering suspects.
The Madras High Court ruled that a Directorate of Enforcement committal petition under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is invalid if filed before the Special Court has taken cognizance and the requisite sanction is produced. This bars premature transfers of DA cases to Special Courts, affecting enforcement agencies and the accused.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that judges issuing bail orders cannot make adverse, defamatory observations about non-parties-such as corporations-without affording them a fair opportunity to respond. This reinforces natural justice as a non-negotiable limit on judicial commentary, protecting corporate reputations from collateral damage in criminal proceedings and setting a critical precedent for judicial conduct in PMLA and other financial crime cases.
Allahabad HC quashes PMLA proceedings against a real estate developer, ruling that loan defaults arising from delayed project delivery do not constitute money laundering. The court held that property acquired before the alleged offence cannot be attached as proceeds of crime, reinforcing that civil disputes cannot be criminalized under PMLA.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate may share financial intelligence under PMLA Section 66(2) with police for UAPA investigations, holding that systematic foreign fund flows into Naxal-affected regions constitute prima facie unlawful activity. This judgment clarifies inter-agency coordination powers and sets a precedent for national security-linked financial probes.
Gauhati High Court rules that provisional attachment orders under PMLA Section 5 must explicitly disclose the 'reason to believe' to comply with natural justice. The court also clarifies that properties representing proceeds of crime can be attached even if acquired before the scheduled offence, reinforcing ED's attachment powers.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a provisional attachment order under the PMLA for failing to demonstrate a concrete risk of asset dissipation. The ruling underscores that statutory compliance in recording reasons is jurisdictional, not merely procedural, affecting enforcement agencies' powers under anti-money laundering laws.
The Delhi High Court held that the gender-based bail proviso under Section 45 of the PMLA is absolute for women, and Section 479 of the BNSS nullifies the cumulative effect of multiple cases in denying bail. This establishes a critical precedent: even when accused in several PMLA proceedings, a woman cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of multiplicity of cases, reinforcing gender equity in financial crime jurisprudence.
Madras High Court rules that retention of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) after quashing of the predicate offence and PMLA proceedings violates Article 14, directing its return with accrued interest. The judgment reinforces that conditional securities under lookout circulars cannot be retained without legal basis, impacting enforcement agencies' compliance with court orders.
Madras High Court sets aside a PMLA cognizance order for failure to issue the mandatory pre-cognizance notice under BNSS Section 223(1), reinforcing procedural fairness in criminal proceedings. The ruling mandates strict adherence to notice requirements before taking cognizance, impacting PMLA and other criminal cases.
Supreme Court grants bail to a former Jharkhand Minister, holding that prolonged custody and asset seizure under overlapping corruption and money laundering charges do not justify continued detention pending appeal. The ruling clarifies that double jeopardy principles and proportionality weigh in favor of release, even in high-value graft cases.