Summary: The article highlights the powers of statutory auditors following the recent judgment, clarifying that statutory auditors cannot be held liable for money laundering solely because of lack of due diligence or negligence. The article also emphasises that criminal liability under PMLA requires clear evidence of collusion and that auditors are not expected to probe beyond their professional auditing role.Continue Reading Absence of Due Diligence Not Money Laundering
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), through its Master Circular dated June 06, 2024, issued ‘Guidelines on Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) Standards and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (“CFT”)/ Obligations of Securities Market Intermediaries under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002,’ (“Master Circular/2024 Guidelines”),[1] emphasising the need for stricter AML/ CFT measures in the securities market, given global efforts against drug trafficking, terrorism, and other serious crimes. The 2024 Guidelines supersede the SEBI AML/ CFT Guidelines of February 03, 2023 (“2023 Guidelines”),[2] strengthening the obligations of market intermediaries and aligning with international standards from the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”).Continue Reading Expanding the Regulatory Framework: Deep dive into SEBI’s new AML/CFT guidelines
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), is a comprehensive law, dealing with aspects of money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication, and confiscation thereof. The “proceeds of crime” is the fulcrum of the offence of money-laundering under the PMLA and all actions taken by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) under the PMLA invariably revolve around it. Accordingly, the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA is of immense relevance. In terms of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, “any property derived or obtained… by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence…” is regarded as proceeds of crime. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[1] (“Vijay Madanlal”), the expression “derived or obtained” is indicative of a criminal activity, relating to a scheduled offence, already accomplished. The commission of a scheduled offense, whether registered with the jurisdictional police or under review by a competent forum through a complaint, constitutes the legal basis for any investigation conducted under the PMLA.Continue Reading Shifting Paradigms in PMLA Jurisprudence: Madras High Court reopens settled principles of Automatic Quashing of PMLA Proceedings
In the realm of law enforcement, transparency and accountability are indispensable pillars upholding the democratic values of a society. The Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”), tasked with investigating and prosecuting economic offenses, plays a vital role in maintaining financial integrity. However, concerns surrounding the lack of transparency in some of the arrests made by the ED have been raised.Continue Reading Ensuring Transparency: The Imperative of Mandatory Furnishing of Written Grounds of Arrest by the Enforcement Directorate