Unraveling Challenges In PMLA Verdict
Posted by admin on 2023-12-27 |
The implementation of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (PMLA) in India, rooted in the country's commitment to combating drug
and terrorism threats, has sparked considerable controversy. The Supreme
Court's interpretation in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (2022) has brought
attention to the limited application of the PMLA and its implications for
enforcement agencies, particularly the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Supreme Court's Limitation
The Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
case narrowed down the PMLA's application to instances involving "wrongful
and illegal gain of property" linked to scheduled offenses. The critical
condition set was that the property must meet the definition of "proceeds
of crime" under Section 2(1) (u) of the 2002 Act. Without such proceeds,
the authorities were deemed unable to initiate any prosecution, emphasizing a
stringent threshold for the ED's intervention.
ED's Conduct Under Scrutiny
Numerous instances of ED searches, seizures, and arrests,
reported by the media, have fallen outside the boundaries defined by the
Supreme Court. In the Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India case, the Court
criticized the ED's functioning, emphasizing the need for probity, dispassion,
and fairness in exercising its extensive powers. Inconsistencies in practices
across regions were also highlighted, raising concerns about procedural
irregularities.
PMLA Key Aspects Emphasized by the Court
In the Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate of Enforcement
case (2023), the Court reiterated key aspects of the PMLA. It underscored that
the existence of "proceeds of crime" is indispensable for an offense
under Section 3 of the PMLA. The Court's emphasis on clarity in linking
criminal activity to scheduled offenses and the derived property as
"proceeds of crime" became a cornerstone in the understanding of the
Act.
Challenges to Federalism:
A growing concern is the ED's overreach in states
governed by the Opposition, notably in cases unrelated to scheduled offenses.
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, not covered by
the PMLA schedule, has seen ED inquiries in these states, encroaching upon the
powers vested in the State governments. This overreach raises questions about
the federal structure, especially when offenses related to state-controlled
minerals are investigated by central agencies.
Selective Targeting and Misuse of Legal
Processes:
The article sheds light on instances in Jharkhand where
the ED, allegedly targeting the ruling party, initiated investigations without
a basis in scheduled offenses. The misuse of legal procedures, including the
filing of a writ petition by an individual in jail and subsequent actions by
the High Court, raises concerns about the integrity of the legal process.
Making Bail Impossible:
The report concludes with a disturbing observation about
the abuse of authority by central investigating agencies. Despite the absence
of scheduled offenses or proceeds of crime, investigations by the CBI and ED
have been permitted, leading to questions about the agencies' motives. The
article suggests a biased approach, with a focus on Opposition-governed states,
while turning a blind eye to similar issues in states governed by the ruling
party.
Conclusion
The PMLA verdict's aftermath reveals a complex interplay
of legal interpretations, federalism challenges, and potential misuse of
investigative powers. As the courts grapple with ensuring due process,
questions linger about the equitable application of the law across diverse
political landscapes.
