Money Laundering Prosecutions
What is Money Laundering?
Money laundering is the process by which proceeds of crime (illegally obtained money) are converted into ostensibly legitimate assets or funds, making it difficult to trace their illicit origin.
Legal Framework in India
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is the principal legislation governing money laundering offenses in India.
The Act criminalizes the process or attempt to conceal or disguise the proceeds of crime.
Offenses under PMLA include acquisition, possession, use, or projection of property derived from criminal activity.
The Act empowers authorities to attach and confiscate properties, conduct investigations, and prosecute offenders.
Essential Elements of Money Laundering Offense (Section 3 of PMLA)
Proceeds of crime: Property derived from criminal activity.
Knowledge or reason to believe: The accused knows or has reason to believe that the property is derived from criminal activity.
Concealment, possession, or use: The accused conceals, possesses, uses, projects, or invests the proceeds of crime.
Prosecution Process
Initiation often follows an investigation of a predicate offense (such as drug trafficking, corruption, fraud).
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is the primary agency responsible for investigation and prosecution.
Once sufficient evidence is gathered, prosecution under PMLA proceeds in special courts designated under the Act.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish both the predicate offense and the laundering activity.
📚 Important Case Laws on Money Laundering Prosecutions
1. R.K. Jain v. Union of India (2016)
Citation: (2016) 3 SCC 306
Facts: The issue was whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can launch a money laundering investigation before the conclusion of the predicate offense investigation.
Held: The Supreme Court held that money laundering investigation can proceed even if the predicate offense investigation is ongoing or incomplete.
Significance: This judgment empowered ED to act proactively and prevent concealment of criminal proceeds at the earliest stage.
2. N. K. Radhakrishnan v. Directorate of Enforcement (2010)
Citation: (2010) 8 SCC 627
Facts: The petitioner challenged the initiation of money laundering proceedings, claiming insufficient evidence of predicate crime.
Held: The Court held that mere allegations or suspicion is not enough; a reasonable basis or "prima facie" satisfaction about the predicate offense is necessary before launching money laundering proceedings.
Significance: Emphasized the safeguard against frivolous or mala fide prosecution under PMLA.
3. Union of India v. Ibrahim (2009)
Citation: (2009) 8 SCC 770
Facts: The appellant argued that prosecution under PMLA requires proof of prior conviction in predicate offense.
Held: The Supreme Court clarified that conviction in predicate offense is not mandatory before initiating money laundering prosecution; the predicate offense must be established beyond reasonable doubt, but trial of both can proceed simultaneously.
Significance: Important clarification easing procedural barriers for effective prosecution under PMLA.
4. Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016)
Citation: (2016) 7 SCC 761
Facts: The petitioner sought protection from harassment in money laundering cases, alleging misuse of PMLA.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that PMLA should be used judiciously and safeguards against abuse should be maintained, ensuring due process and fair trial.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of protecting rights of accused while empowering authorities to tackle economic offenses.
5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Privacy Judgment)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Relevance: Though primarily about the right to privacy, the Supreme Court discussed surveillance and data collection powers under PMLA.
Held: The Court held that any surveillance under PMLA must be balanced against constitutional rights and used in accordance with law.
Significance: This case emphasizes the need for procedural safeguards in money laundering investigations involving personal data and privacy.
6. Enforcement Directorate v. Vipin Gupta (2019)
Facts: ED invoked PMLA to attach properties allegedly acquired through proceeds of crime linked to a corporate fraud.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld attachment orders where the prosecution demonstrated a clear link between assets and predicate crime.
Significance: Strengthened the authority of ED in attaching properties during investigations to prevent dissipation.
Summary Points
| Aspect | Summary |
|---|---|
| Predicate Offense | Essential foundation for money laundering charge |
| Investigation | Conducted by ED with wide powers |
| Initiation | Can precede conclusion of predicate crime case |
| Proof | Reasonable satisfaction required for launching case; beyond reasonable doubt at trial |
| Safeguards | Courts insist on due process and protection against misuse |
| Property Attachment | Prevents dissipation of criminal proceeds during investigation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments