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 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), places proceeds of crime at the core of the offence of money laundering. Before delving into this article, it is imperative to understand the definition of proceeds of crime, which Section 2 (1) (u) of the PMLA[1] defines as “any property derived or obtained by any person, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence”.Continue Reading Changing Landscape of Arrest Under the PMLA – Decoding Section 19 Through Jurisprudence
Through a series of recent judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined limits to the Directorate of Enforcement’s (“ED”) powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Resultantly, issues that were rather ambiguous are now a lot clearer.Continue Reading Tarsem Lal v Directorate of Enforcement: Supreme Court further clarifies PMLA framework
Vide order dated March 20, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rejected a petition[1] preferred by the Union of India, seeking a review of the judgement passed in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India[2](“Pankaj Bansal”), wherein it was held that it was mandatory for the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to provide written ‘reasons for arrest’ to a person arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).Continue Reading Arrests under PMLA: Arrest first, reasons to follow?
In a recent judgement of Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of Enforcement[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), will be attributed as a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA / Act”), only if the alleged criminal conspiracy is associated with committing of a scheduled offence, i.e. an offence specifically included in the Schedule to the PMLA. The Hon’ble Court held that if the offence of alleged criminal conspiracy is related to any other offence, which does not form a part of the Schedule to the PMLA, then the alleged criminal conspiracy by itself shall not be considered as a “scheduled offence” under the regime of the PMLA and hence, no person can be held liable and be prosecuted for it.[2]Continue Reading Section 120B of IPC cannot be treated as a standalone offence to attract prosecution under PMLA: Supreme Court
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