Financing Terrorism Under Uapa
1. What is Financing Terrorism under UAPA?
Financing terrorism means providing, collecting, or using funds or property with the intention or knowledge that such resources will be used to commit terrorist acts. It includes funding terrorist groups, helping procure weapons, training, or logistical support.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is India’s primary legislation to combat terrorism. The Act was amended multiple times, notably in 2004, 2008, and 2019, to strengthen provisions related to terrorism financing.
2. Relevant Provisions of UAPA Regarding Financing Terrorism
Section 15 of UAPA: Defines “terrorist act” and includes acts done with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India.
Section 17: Punishment for terrorist acts.
Section 18: Punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts.
Section 39: Prohibition on fundraising and financial support to terrorist organizations.
Section 40: Penalty for providing support or resources for terrorist acts.
Section 40A: Deals with financing of terrorist organizations specifically.
3. Elements of the Offense of Financing Terrorism
To convict under UAPA for financing terrorism, prosecution must establish:
The accused provided, collected, or possessed funds or resources.
The accused had knowledge or intention that such funds/resources would be used for terrorist acts.
The funds were directly or indirectly used to support terrorist groups or activities.
4. Important Case Laws on Financing Terrorism under UAPA
Case 1: National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2018) 13 SCC 439
Facts: Accused was charged with raising funds for terrorist groups involved in militancy in Jammu & Kashmir.
Issue: Whether collecting funds for terror activities falls within UAPA’s ambit.
Judgment: Supreme Court upheld that raising or collecting funds with knowledge/intention of terrorist use is punishable under Section 18 UAPA.
Significance: Reinforced the strict liability of financing terrorism and upheld the validity of stringent provisions.
Case 2: Hafiz Mohammed Saeed v. National Investigation Agency, (2020) 11 SCC 1
Facts: Accused was the head of a banned terrorist organization accused of financing terror activities in India.
Issue: Whether funds raised for the organization can be prosecuted as terrorism financing.
Judgment: Court emphasized that funding banned organizations with knowledge of their terrorist activities amounts to financing terrorism under UAPA.
Significance: Confirmed that funds to terrorist organizations, even if used indirectly, attract criminal liability.
Case 3: Mohd. Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1
Facts: The lone surviving terrorist of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks was examined, along with funding channels of the terrorist group.
Issue: Role of financing and logistics support in terrorist attacks.
Judgment: The Supreme Court recognized financing terrorism as a vital link in terror infrastructure and upheld convictions under UAPA.
Significance: Recognized that prosecuting financiers is as important as prosecuting terrorists on ground.
Case 4: National Investigation Agency v. Abu Salem, (2018) 14 SCC 325
Facts: Accused was involved in raising and transferring funds to terror groups internationally.
Issue: Jurisdiction and applicability of UAPA in cross-border financing.
Judgment: The Court allowed prosecution under UAPA emphasizing India’s extraterritorial jurisdiction over terrorist financing impacting national security.
Significance: Demonstrated India’s resolve to tackle international terror financing.
Case 5: Union of India v. One Anonymous Person, (2016) SCC Online SC 1298
Facts: This case dealt with the attachment of properties suspected to be acquired through terror financing.
Issue: Powers of authorities to seize assets involved in terror financing.
Judgment: The Court upheld the powers of authorities under UAPA to confiscate properties and freeze accounts involved in terror financing.
Significance: Strengthened preventive measures by allowing asset seizures to choke terror funds.
Case 6: State of Maharashtra v. Yakub Memon, (2012) 11 SCC 1
Facts: Accused convicted for involvement in 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts including financing aspects.
Issue: Role of financial support in terrorist conspiracy.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that arranging and providing funds to execute terrorist acts is an essential element of the offense.
Significance: Reiterated that financing is an inseparable part of terrorism.
5. Challenges in Prosecuting Terror Financing
Tracing the money trail: Terror funds are often transferred through informal channels (hawala, cash couriers).
Proof of intention or knowledge: Hard to prove accused knew the funds would be used for terror.
International cooperation: Funds often cross borders requiring coordination with foreign agencies.
Use of cryptocurrencies and dark web: Makes tracking difficult.
6. Preventive and Punitive Measures
Enforcement agencies use Financial Intelligence Units (FIU) to track suspicious transactions.
Asset freezing and confiscation powers under UAPA.
International cooperation through FATF (Financial Action Task Force) guidelines.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) alongside UAPA.
7. Conclusion
Financing terrorism under UAPA is treated as a grave offense threatening national security. Indian courts have consistently upheld strict provisions to prosecute financiers of terrorism. The judiciary supports strong preventive measures like asset confiscation, investigation of financial networks, and extraterritorial jurisdiction to choke terror funding sources.
RELATED Blog
0 comments