Terrorism Financing Prosecutions And Judicial Outcomes
1. Introduction to Terrorism Financing
Terrorism financing involves the collection, provision, or use of funds intended to support terrorist activities, including:
Purchasing weapons or explosives
Facilitating training and logistics
Funding terrorist organizations
Legal framework in India:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA, amended 2008 & 2019)
Criminalizes support, funding, or membership in terrorist organizations
Allows seizure of property used for terrorism
Designates individuals and organizations as terrorist entities
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)
Investigates proceeds of terrorism financing as a form of money laundering
IPC Provisions
Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
Section 121: Waging war against the State
Section 122: Collecting arms with intent to wage war
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010
Regulates foreign funding to prevent misuse for terrorism
2. Enforcement Mechanisms
National Investigation Agency (NIA): Handles terror financing investigations nationwide.
Enforcement Directorate (ED): Probes money laundering connected to terrorism.
Special Courts: UAPA-designated courts handle terror financing trials.
Asset Freezing and Seizure: Property and bank accounts used for terrorism are attached.
3. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Indian Mujahideen (IM) Terror Financing – 2008–2012
Facts:
Indian Mujahideen was involved in multiple bombings and received funds from domestic and foreign sources.
Judgment:
NIA prosecuted key members under UAPA Sections 17, 18, 18A, 18B, including terrorist financing.
Several accused received life imprisonment, along with asset attachment under PMLA.
Significance:
First large-scale enforcement combining terrorism acts and money laundering
Case 2: 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks – Ajmal Kasab and Associates (2012)
Facts:
Funds and logistical support for 26/11 attacks originated from Pakistan-based terrorist networks.
Judgment:
NIA and ED prosecuted accomplices under UAPA, IPC 120B, 121, 307, and PMLA for fund transfers.
Ajmal Kasab sentenced to death, while others received life imprisonment and assets were seized.
Significance:
Demonstrated linkage of terror financing with cross-border terrorism and operational execution
Case 3: Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Funding – 2010–2016
Facts:
LeT raised funds for terrorist operations through hawala networks, charitable fronts, and donations.
Judgment:
NIA filed cases against financiers under UAPA Sections 17, 18 and PMLA
Courts upheld conviction for terrorist financing, conspiracy, and money laundering
Significance:
Highlighted tracking of covert funding channels for terrorist operations
Case 4: Indian Mujahideen – Riaz Bhatkal Case (2014)
Facts:
Riaz Bhatkal, a key IM operative, arranged funds from international contacts for terrorist strikes in India.
Judgment:
NIA invoked Sections 17, 18, 18A, 18B UAPA, along with PMLA provisions
Confiscation of bank accounts and foreign assets
Life imprisonment awarded for terrorism and financial support
Significance:
Demonstrated use of financial forensics to dismantle terror financing networks
Case 5: SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) – Terror Financing Case (2001–2012)
Facts:
SIMI was involved in terror recruitment and received funds to support operations and training.
Judgment:
Courts convicted leaders under UAPA, IPC 120B, and PMLA
NIA and ED froze bank accounts, confiscated property, and ordered long-term imprisonment
Significance:
Reinforced integration of funding and operational criminal prosecution
Case 6: ISI-backed Terror Financing – Pathankot Airbase Attack (2016)
Facts:
Funds were routed via hawala networks from Pakistan to support Pathankot attack.
Judgment:
NIA prosecuted under UAPA 17, 18, IPC 120B, PMLA, seizing accounts and freezing assets
Accused convicted for terrorist financing, conspiracy, and waging war against the State
Significance:
Showed importance of cross-border financial intelligence in terror prevention
4. Principles Derived from Case Laws
Terror financing is treated as serious as physical terrorist acts
UAPA and PMLA work together to punish financial support of terrorism
Asset seizure and freezing are essential for disruption of terrorist networks
International cooperation (e.g., hawala tracking, extradition, foreign bank account monitoring) is key
Special courts and investigative agencies ensure focused prosecution and timely adjudication
5. Enforcement Challenges
Use of hawala networks and crypto-currencies complicates tracing funds
Cross-border funds require international legal cooperation
Proving direct linkage between funds and terrorist acts is often difficult
Ensuring timely prosecution while maintaining evidence integrity
6. Conclusion
Terror financing prosecutions in India are handled primarily under UAPA and PMLA, with support from IPC provisions.
Landmark cases such as 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Indian Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, SIMI, Riaz Bhatkal, and Pathankot Airbase attack illustrate:
Enforcement against domestic and cross-border financing
Integration of financial forensics, asset seizure, and criminal prosecution
Judicial support for strict punishment and deterrence
The approach ensures that financial networks supporting terrorism are dismantled, preventing future attacks and protecting national security.
RELATED Blog
0 comments