Photo of Ankoosh Mehta

Ankoosh Mehta

Subscribe to Ankoosh Mehta's Posts

Partner (Co-Head – White Collar & Investigation) in the Dispute Resolution Team at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Ankoosh focuses on arbitrations (domestic and international),  corporate/commercial litigation, real estate disputes and private client pratice related litigation. He can be reached at ankoosh.mehta@cyrilshroff.com

Contact:Read more about Ankoosh Mehta
Renewed focus on Liberty - Delhi High Court upholds Constitutional Safeguards on Bail under PMLA

Securing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA“), is challenging due to the high threshold for bail stipulated by the Act. Section 45 of the PMLA stipulates that bail may be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if two conditions are met: first, the Public Prosecutor must be given the opportunity to oppose the bail application; second, there must be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is frequently contended that these twin conditions pose a significant challenge to the prevailing legal principle in criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the twin conditions challenge an accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution[1].Continue Reading Renewed focus on Liberty – Delhi High Court upholds Constitutional Safeguards on Bail under PMLA

From Harbour to Hardships? Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Part IV

Introduction

This is in continuation to the series on the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 Rules”). This article examines the Rule[1] that proposed the creation of a fact-checking unit (“FCU”) and the subsequent legal challenge before the Bombay High Court, which has led to this specific rule being declared unconstitutional.Continue Reading From Harbour to Hardships? Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Part IV

Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?

Introduction:

A recent decision rendered by the Madras High Court in S. Srinivasan v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai[1], has held that being in possession of the proceeds of crime and claiming it to be untainted property can independently be perceived as money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

Although the said decision is in line with the principles previously enunciated by various courts while interpreting the PMLA provisions, such a simple interpretation may possibly lead to unintended situations. The primary reason being that anyone who is merely in possession of proceeds of crime without any genuine knowledge or any involvement therein can be prosecuted under PMLA. This perspective may prove to be counterproductive to the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.Continue Reading Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?

Navigating the Crypto Maze: Delhi HC expands scope of predicate offences under PMLA

Introduction

A single judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a significant ruling in the matter of Adnan Nisar v. Directorate of Enforcement and other connected matters[1], on September 17, 2024, holding that an offence committed in a foreign country can be classified as Predicate Offence, under the Prevention of…

Critiquing the Regulatory Threshold for an ‘Officer Who is in Default’ under the Companies Act, 2013

In Part I of this series, we had discussed the ambiguities surrounding the rectification of non-compliances under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). In Part II, we seek to address another critical aspect of the Act – the imposition of liability on a company’s officer for offences and non-compliances by the Company.[1]Continue Reading Critiquing the Regulatory Threshold for an ‘Officer Who is in Default’ under the Companies Act, 2013

The Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) stands as a cornerstone of corporate regulation in India. It lays down a comprehensive compliance framework for body corporates as well as their officers to protect the rights and interests of shareholders and investors. In the first part of this two-part blog series, we seek to address the ambiguities pertaining to proactive rectifications of the non-compliances and contraventions under the Act. In the second blog, we will discuss the threshold for liability of “officers in default” under the Act.Continue Reading Ambiguities in Regulatory Thresholds for Rectifying Breaches under the Companies Act, 2013

Courting Controversies: Dispute Resolution finds a sweet spot in Indian Media Industry

India’s media and entertainment industry has always been close-knit. It has thrived on inter-personal relationships and handshake deals rather than extensive legal contracts, which worked well for decades. The far and few litigations over the years was telling of this fact.Continue Reading Courting Controversies: Dispute Resolution finds a sweet spot in Indian Media Industry

Bombay High Court upholds NCLT’s decision to release ED attached properties after nod to IBC Resolution Plan

The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved. The Court’s decision was based on an interpretation of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).Continue Reading Bombay High Court upholds NCLT’s decision to release ED attached properties after nod to IBC Resolution Plan

Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?

Introduction

On January 16, 2024, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case of Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.,[1] (“Chandrababu Naidu Case”) wherein the pertinent question of law was relating to the interpretation of the scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). The provision provides for a requirement of taking a prior approval of an appropriate authority before initiating any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act. Since the alleged offences in the instant case were committed prior to July 26, 2018 – the date on which Section 17A was incorporated vide the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018, the issues identified by the Supreme Court relate to the interpretation and ambit of the following legal questions:Continue Reading Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?

truth or illusion? - Criminal Liability of Digital Intermediaries in the age of deepfakes

Introduction

A deepfake connotes a highly realistic synthetic media of a real person, generated by an Artificial Intelligence. While a parallel can be drawn between photo-alteration technology and deepfakes, the latter is inherently disingenuous because it makes it difficult to ascertain doctoring. The gravity of leaving this technology unregulated is severe because it can be used to disseminate misinformation with drastic political, reputational and financial implications.Continue Reading Truth or Illusion? – Criminal Liability of Digital Intermediaries in the age of Deepfakes