Money Laundering Act Strict Liability
✅ What Is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002?
The PMLA was enacted to prevent money laundering, confiscate property derived from criminal activity, and prosecute individuals/entities involved in the process of laundering "proceeds of crime."
Money laundering is defined under Section 3 of the Act.
Section 4 prescribes punishment (up to 7 years, extendable to 10 years for certain offences).
Enforcement Directorate (ED) is the main investigative body.
⚖️ What Is Strict Liability?
Strict liability in criminal law means liability without proof of intention (mens rea). Under strict liability:
If the prohibited act (actus reus) is committed, liability arises regardless of intent or knowledge.
Under the PMLA, strict liability may be inferred when:
A person is found handling or possessing proceeds of crime, even if they claim lack of intent.
Certain procedural defaults or non-compliances happen regardless of criminal intent.
However, there is ongoing debate whether PMLA truly follows strict liability or still requires some form of mental element (knowledge or connection to the predicate offence).
📚 Key Case Laws on PMLA and Strict Liability
1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022)
Court: Supreme Court
🔍 Facts:
Multiple petitions challenged the constitutionality of PMLA provisions — especially burden of proof, twin conditions for bail, and procedural safeguards.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions, including the reversal of burden of proof (Section 24) and the non-requirement of mens rea at preliminary stages.
The accused must prove that proceeds of crime are not untainted, even without the prosecution showing intent at first.
📌 Significance:
Established that PMLA provisions have strict liability traits, especially regarding possession or involvement with proceeds of crime.
2. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2017)
Court: Supreme Court
🔍 Facts:
The petitioner challenged the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Court struck down the twin bail conditions as unconstitutional.
Held that the conditions were harsh and disproportionate, especially where mens rea was not clear.
📌 Significance:
Though later nullified by amendments, this case questioned the fairness of imposing liability without proving intent, thus questioning full-blown strict liability.
3. Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (2015)
Court: Supreme Court
🔍 Facts:
The accused, associated with the Rose Valley scam, was charged under PMLA for laundering money through various accounts.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Court held that even indirect involvement with proceeds of crime can make one liable.
Knowledge or intention was inferred based on circumstantial evidence.
📌 Significance:
Indicated that constructive knowledge (not direct mens rea) could be sufficient for liability — reinforcing a quasi-strict liability model.
4. B. Ramaraju v. Union of India (2011)
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
🔍 Facts:
Property of the petitioner was attached under PMLA, although no direct involvement in predicate offence was shown.
⚖️ Judgment:
Held that mere possession of property doesn’t make one liable under PMLA unless a clear link is shown to proceeds of crime.
Intention and knowledge must be established for attachment under Section 5.
📌 Significance:
Limited the scope of strict liability, clarifying that without linking the asset to the criminal act, one cannot be held liable.
5. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (2017)
Court: Supreme Court
🔍 Facts:
Dealt with the linkage of PAN and Aadhaar, touching on concerns of financial tracking and surveillance under PMLA.
⚖️ Judgment:
Though not a PMLA prosecution, the Court accepted the government’s concern of using such measures to combat money laundering, even without personal fault.
📌 Significance:
Supported regulatory strict liability — enforcing compliance even without proof of mens rea.
6. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2016)
Court: Delhi High Court
🔍 Facts:
Company’s assets were attached under PMLA though no predicate offence conviction existed.
⚖️ Judgment:
Court held that attachment under Section 5 is civil in nature and doesn't require prior conviction.
Liability attaches to the property if it's proven to be proceeds of crime — not dependent on the owner’s intent.
📌 Significance:
Shows that property can be attached without personal culpability, demonstrating a form of strict liability under the Act.
7. Seema Garg v. Directorate of Enforcement (2021)
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
🔍 Facts:
Wife of the main accused had property attached. She claimed she was unaware of any criminal activity.
⚖️ Judgment:
Court ruled that ownership of proceeds of crime, even without knowledge, can result in liability under PMLA unless proven otherwise.
📌 Significance:
Further affirmed reverse burden and quasi-strict liability principles.
🧠 Summary: Is PMLA a Strict Liability Law?
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Liability | PMLA includes strict and reverse burden elements, especially for attachment and bail conditions. |
| Mens Rea (Intent) | Not always necessary — inference or constructive knowledge may suffice. |
| Attachment of Property | Can happen even without conviction or clear intent. |
| Reverse Burden | Under Section 24, once prosecution shows connection to proceeds of crime, the burden shifts to the accused. |
| Punitive Measures | Up to 7–10 years imprisonment and asset seizure, even if the accused has no direct role. |
🏁 Conclusion:
The PMLA, 2002, incorporates several strict liability elements, especially in property attachment and bail conditions. Courts have upheld many of these provisions, recognizing the unique nature of financial crimes and the difficulty in proving mens rea in layered transactions. However, they also stress judicial oversight to avoid misuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments