Prevention Of Money Laundering Act (PMLA): Digest Of High Court Cases-2022

LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:1. Prevention Of Money Laundering Act | "For Money-Launderers Jail Is The Rule And Bail Is An Exception": Allahabad High CourtCase title - Anirudh Kamal Shukla v. Union Of India Thru. Assistant Dir. Directorate Of Enforcement LkoCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 136While rejecting the anticipatory bail application of a person booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Allahabad High Court observed that for money-launderers Jail is the rule and bail is an exception.The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observes thus as it stressed that money Laundering as an offence is an economic threat to national interest and is committed by the white-collar offenders who are deeply rooted in society and cannot be traced out easily.2. Kappan Bail In PMLA Case| "No Other Transaction Alleged Except For ₹5K Received In Bank Account Of Co-Accused": Allahabad HCCase title - Sidhique Kappan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13642 of 2022]Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 537The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case initiated against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).Significantly, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted in its order that except for the allegations that ₹5K was transferred in the bank account of the co-accused (Atikur Rahman), there is no other transaction, either in the bank account of Kappan or in the Co-accused bank account."Even if it is believed that part of the proceeds of the crime was transferred to the bank account of the co-accused, Atikur Rahman that itself may not be sufficient to prove that the accused-applicant has dealt with the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 1,36,14,291/-which had been allegedly received by K.A. Rauf Sherif," the bench added (emphasis supplied).3. S.45 PMLA: Twin Conditions For Bail That Were Declared Unconstitutional By SC Stand Revived By 2018 Amendment Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ajay Kumar v Directorate of EnforcementCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 27A two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court noted that the twin conditions for bail in section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which were declared unconstitutional by the judgment of the Apex Court in Nikesh T.Shah Vs. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, stand revived in view of the Legislative intervention vide Amendment Act 13 of 2018.In doing so, the division bench has departed from the view earlier expressed by a single bench of the Bombay High Court in Sameer M. Bhujbal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement.4. Claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002 – Bombay HC in Nawab MalikCase Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 82Case No: WP 648/ 2022In its order refusing interim release of Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik, the Bombay High Court observed that prima facie claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002.The court denied Malik interim release in his habeas corpus plea challenging PMLA proceedings. The crux of Nawab Malik's counsel's arguments was on the retrospective applicability of PMLA since ED had used the amended provision of section 3 of PMLA from 2013 and an explanation is inserted in the year 2019, for the transaction of the year 2003 and 2005.However, the bench observed that a perusal of the unamended provisions of Section 3 mention "process or activity connected with proceeds of crime" as one of the ingredients. It's a wider term and its constitutional validity is not challenged. "What we prima facie feel that projection/claiming a property as untainted property is the objectionable act forming part of an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002."5. Anil Deshmukh May Not Get Convicted, Sachin Waze's Statements Contradictory: Bombay High Court In Bail OrderCase title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 373The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate stating that Deshmukh, in all probability, "may not be ultimately convicted".The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar refused to rely solely on Sachin Waze's statements considering his contradictory stand before the Justice Chandiwal Commission wherein he denied all the allegations against Deshmukh. The court also cited Waze's chequered past to prima facie discredit him as a witness.6. Prima Facie Offence Of Money Laundering Not Made Out: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Anil Deshmukh's...

Prevention Of Money Laundering Act (PMLA): Digest Of High Court Cases-2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags