Comparative Study Of Organized Crime Enforcement

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Organized crime is a serious threat to law and order, involving structured groups engaged in illegal activities such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, and cybercrime. Enforcement against organized crime requires a combination of criminal statutes, special investigative agencies, and procedural safeguards.

Legal Framework in India

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act, 2002 (POCA) – targets organized crime syndicates.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – combats terrorist organizations.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – addresses drug syndicates.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions – criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), extortion, kidnapping, murder.

Special investigative agencies – CBI, NIA, ED (Enforcement Directorate), and state police units.

Comparative Perspective:

USA: Organized crime is targeted under the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), allowing prosecution of individuals for being part of a criminal enterprise.

Italy: The Mafia-type crime laws allow seizure of assets and stringent preventive measures.

UK: The Serious Crime Act, 2015 targets criminal networks and includes preventive orders.

Key Elements in Organized Crime Enforcement

Targeting Criminal Syndicates rather than individuals only.

Tracing Financial Transactions for money laundering.

Asset Seizure and Forfeiture to weaken criminal organizations.

Proactive Surveillance and intelligence-based policing.

Use of Special Courts for speedy trials (e.g., NDPS courts, POCA courts).

Case Law Analysis

1. R v. Salvatore Riina (Italy, 1993)

Facts:
Salvatore Riina, a Sicilian Mafia boss, was prosecuted for organized crime, multiple murders, and extortion. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies (pentiti) and financial trails.

Judgment:

Italian courts held Riina guilty, using the Mafia association laws, which penalize membership in criminal syndicates.

Heavy reliance on asset seizure to weaken the Mafia’s influence.

Impact:

Shows proactive law enforcement with a focus on criminal networks rather than individual acts.

Comparative lesson: India’s POCA similarly focuses on criminal syndicates, not just individual crimes.

2. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (PUCL) (1997 SC)

Facts:
This case addressed the rise of organized crime in Mumbai and its nexus with political and business elites. PUCL petitioned for stricter preventive measures.

Judgment:

Supreme Court emphasized effective policing and preventive measures.

Directed the state to improve intelligence and coordination with agencies.

Impact:

Enforcement requires integration of investigative agencies.

Public interest litigation played a role in highlighting organized crime impact.

3. State of Maharashtra v. Mohanlal Jethalal (1994 SC)

Facts:
A case involving a syndicate engaged in smuggling and extortion in Mumbai.

Judgment:

Court upheld stringent provisions under CrPC and IPC for preventive detention of syndicate members.

Highlighted that proof of membership in an organized group suffices to initiate action, even without direct involvement in every crime.

Impact:

Legal recognition that organized crime is systemic, and enforcement can target the network, not only individual acts.

4. R v. John Gotti (USA, 1992)

Facts:
John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family, was charged under RICO Act for multiple murders, racketeering, and extortion.

Judgment:

Federal Court convicted Gotti on charges of racketeering, highlighting his leadership role in the organization.

Used wiretaps, informants, and financial evidence to prove network involvement.

Impact:

Demonstrates U.S. approach of criminal enterprise liability, which India mirrors under POCA (Section 2 definition of organized crime).

5. State of Gujarat v. Zakir Hussain (2008 SC)

Facts:
Case involved a syndicate trafficking narcotics across borders. NCB (Narcotics Control Bureau) initiated coordinated raids.

Judgment:

Supreme Court upheld the use of NDPS Act, including preventive detention and special courts for speedy trial.

Emphasized interstate coordination and intelligence-based enforcement.

Impact:

Highlights importance of specialized enforcement agencies and procedural frameworks.

Comparable to international methods where cross-jurisdictional coordination is key.

6. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978 SC) – Indirect Relevance

Facts:
Although not directly about organized crime, the SC held that prevention of crime can justify procedural deviations.

Impact for Organized Crime:

Validates pre-emptive enforcement measures like surveillance, preventive detention, and asset freezing when targeting syndicates.

7. Enforcement Directorate v. M/S Rose Valley (2017 SC)

Facts:
Rose Valley ponzi scheme was a large-scale financial fraud involving multiple actors across states.

Judgment:

SC recognized the structured network of financial crimes as organized crime.

Enforcement Directorate (ED) allowed to freeze assets, interrogate key leaders, and prosecute under POCA and PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).

Impact:

Shows Indian enforcement increasingly targeting financial networks, not just street-level crimes.

Highlights the global trend of focusing on money laundering and proceeds of organized crime.

Comparative Analysis

Feature	India	USA	Italy	UK
Primary Law	POCA, NDPS, UAPA	RICO Act	Mafia-type association laws	Serious Crime Act 2015
Focus	Syndicate + individuals	Criminal enterprise	Mafia network	Criminal networks + preventive orders
Enforcement Agencies	CBI, NIA, ED, State Police	FBI, DEA	Carabinieri, DIA	NCA, Police
Asset Seizure	Yes, under PMLA & POCA	Yes, RICO forfeiture	Yes, asset freezing	Yes, confiscation orders
Preventive Measures	Preventive detention, surveillance	Wiretaps, informants	Witness protection, intelligence	Restraining orders, surveillance