Terrorism Financing Cases Under Uapa
πΉ Understanding Terrorism Financing under UAPA
The UAPA is India's primary anti-terror law, aimed at combating unlawful activities and terrorism.
π¨ What is Terrorism Financing?
Terrorism financing refers to providing, collecting, or using funds with the intention or knowledge that they will be used, directly or indirectly, for terrorist acts.
π Relevant Provisions in UAPA:
Section 15 β Definition of terrorist act.
Section 17 β Punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts, regardless of whether the funds are actually used.
Section 18 β Punishment for conspiracy or attempt to commit a terrorist act.
Section 40 β Offence of providing money or other property to a terrorist organisation.
To secure a conviction, authorities must prove the intent, knowledge, or reasonable cause to suspect that the funds would be used for terrorism.
πΈ Important Terror Financing Cases Under UAPA
1. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. National Investigation Agency (2019)
π Supreme Court of India
π Facts:
Watali, a Kashmiri businessman, was accused of funding separatist activities in Jammu & Kashmir.
NIA alleged that he acted as a conduit for funds from Pakistan-based entities to Kashmiri separatists.
βοΈ Key Legal Points:
Supreme Court denied bail, citing a prima facie case under UAPA.
Held that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, courts cannot grant bail if a prima facie case exists.
π Significance:
Set a high threshold for bail in UAPA cases.
Reinforced that raising or routing funds, even without direct violence, qualifies as a terrorist offence.
2. National Investigation Agency v. Gautam Navlakha (2020β2023)
π Bhima Koregaon Case
π Facts:
Gautam Navlakha, a civil rights activist, was accused of having links with Maoist groups.
Allegedly involved in fundraising for banned organizations and supporting violent insurgency.
βοΈ Key Legal Points:
NIA invoked UAPA Sections 17 and 18 for funding and conspiracy.
Navlakha challenged the charges, citing lack of direct evidence of monetary transfer.
π Significance:
Explored the limits of "association" and "support" to terror groups.
Showed how even intellectual or ideological support, if linked to financial assistance, can fall under UAPA.
3. State v. Syed Salahuddin & Others (2011βongoing)
π Terror Funding by Hizbul Mujahideen
π Facts:
Salahuddin (chief of Hizbul Mujahideen) and others were accused of routing terror funds through Hawala channels and fake NGOs.
Investigations revealed transactions across international borders, including funds from the UAE and Pakistan.
βοΈ Legal Developments:
Multiple accused booked under Section 17 and 40 of UAPA.
NIA presented digital and financial records to establish the terror financing network.
π Significance:
A landmark case demonstrating how NGOs and charities can be misused for terror financing.
Emphasized the importance of financial surveillance in counter-terrorism.
4. Enforcement Directorate v. PFI (Popular Front of India) Leaders (2022β2023)
π Nationwide crackdown on PFI
π Facts:
ED and NIA alleged that PFI received foreign funds and illegal domestic donations used to fund radicalization and training for extremist activities.
βοΈ Key Issues:
Investigations led to mass arrests and the eventual ban of PFI.
Authorities invoked Sections 17 and 40, accusing leaders of handling funds for terror acts.
π Significance:
A major case linking financial crimes (money laundering) to terrorism financing.
Demonstrated synergy between UAPA and PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).
πΈ Summary: Key Takeaways
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Fund Raising (Sec 17) | Punishes raising funds with knowledge or suspicion they may be used for terror. |
| Providing Property (Sec 40) | Even giving money or assets to a banned group is punishable. |
| No Need for Fund Usage | Actual use of money for a terrorist act is not necessary to establish offence. |
| Strict Bail Conditions | Under Sec 43D(5), courts cannot grant bail if there's prima facie evidence. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments