Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) Critical Review of Key Provisions

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) stands as a pivotal legislative tool in India, designed to combat money laundering and allied financial crimes, having a fundamental objective to thwart money laundering and facilitate the confiscation of property derived from or implicated in money laundering. Money laundering, as per the act, is expansively defined to encompass any process or activity attempting to legitimize illegally obtained proceeds, such as those arising from criminal activities. The act criminalizes money laundering activities, imposing stringent penalties that include imprisonment and fines for individuals found guilty of such offenses. Enforcement of the PMLA is orchestrated by various authorities, with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the forefront. The ED is entrusted with investigating and prosecuting offenses under the act. Embarking on an exploration of the intricate domain outlined by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) leads us to a realm where the intersections of financial regulations, criminal justice principles, and ethical considerations converge. By examining a series of pertinent adjudications related to the PMLA, we enter a reservoir of legal knowledge that significantly shapes the understanding and application of this crucial legislation. These legal determinations not only clarify the intricacies surrounding money laundering and its consequences but also offer invaluable guidance for legal practitioners, scholars, and policymakers striving to strike a balance between prosecuting financial offenses and safeguarding individual liberties. Within this compilation, we engage in an intellectual journey, mapping the continually evolving terrain of PMLA legal interpretations and presenting a comprehensive perspective on its development and significance within the framework of precedent law in the pursuit of justice. While serving as

By examining a series of pertinent adjudications related to the PMLA, we enter a reservoir of legal knowledge that significantly shapes the understanding and application of this crucial legislation.These legal determinations not only clarify the intricacies surrounding money laundering and its consequences but also offer invaluable guidance for legal practitioners, scholars, and policymakers striving to strike a balance between prosecuting financial offenses and safeguarding individual liberties.Within this compilation, we engage in an intellectual journey, mapping the continually evolving terrain of PMLA legal interpretations and presenting a comprehensive perspective on its development and significance within the framework of precedent law in the pursuit of justice.
While serving as a significant tool in the battle against money laundering, the PMLA has faced criticisms, particularly concerning certain provisions such as the broad definition of "proceeds of crime", about the burden of proof placed on the accused, usual overreach, bail provisions etc. which become issues for critical analysis specially in preview of latest judgements of Hon.Supreme Court of India.Pending the review of the controversial judgment in 2022, specifically in the cases of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) seems to have gained significant momentum.The

INTRODUCTION
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is a cornerstone of India's legal framework aimed at combating the scourge of money laundering and associated financial crimes.As financial landscapes continually evolve, it becomes imperative to critically assess the effectiveness and nuances of such legislative measures.This critical review endeavours to dissect and evaluate various challenging facets of the PMLA, examining its weaknesses, and broader implications.From its foundational objectives to the intricacies of legal definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and international collaborations, this review aims to offer an analysis of key provisions which tend to direct the implantation of law in arbitrary manner.By delving into recent judgments, amendments, and emerging challenges, present research seeks to provide a nuanced perspective on key provisions of PMLA's impact on the delicate balance between combating financial crimes and safeguarding individual liberties.Through this critical lens, it is endeavoured to contribute to a deeper understanding of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in India and its challenging implications for the broader legal landscape.
The legislation mandates that banking companies, financial institutions, and intermediaries bear the responsibility of verifying and maintaining comprehensive records concerning the identity of all clients and transactions.Noteworthy features of the Act include stringent bail conditions, the arrest of individuals without the provision of an Enforcement Case Information Report, the non-communication of grounds of arrest to the accused, the admissibility of statements made by the accused during the investigation as evidence during trial, and the incorporation of broad definitions for money laundering and proceeds of crime within the Act.Critics contend that the amendments to the Act have failed to yield the anticipated improvements in convictions.Instead, they argue that the amendments have resulted in a procedural framework that encroaches upon an individual's liberty, depriving them of constitutional guarantees and the due process laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In this research paper, following challenges are analysed:

Proceeds of Crime -Broad definition
Debates have emerged regarding the interpretation of the term "proceeds of crime" in the context of the PMLA.Some argue that the definition is excessively broad and has the potential to encompass lawful financial transactions, possibly leading to misuse.

Burden of Proof on Accused
Concerning the burden of proof, critics maintain that it is unreasonably burdensome for the accused under the PMLA.The alteration in the burden of proof may, on occasion, present challenges in ensuring a fair trial.

Overreach by Officers
Some critics contend that the legislation might confer excessive powers upon authorities, potentially leading to misuse and overreach.Striking a balance between empowering law enforcement and safeguarding individual rights presents a nuanced challenge.

Stringent Bail conditions
Section 45 of PMLA says that if you want bail, then you have to prove that you will not commit any such offence, which literally means you have to prove your innocence, which will result in a mini-trial at the stage of adjudication of bail applications," The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in India allows for stringent bail conditions to be imposed on individuals accused of money laundering offenses.While bail is a legal right, the PMLA empowers the authorities to impose certain conditions to ensure that the accused complies with the legal process and does not interfere with the investigation.These conditions include deposit of substantial sums and freezing of assets etc.With evolving financial inclusions and its globalisation, a critical review of key provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is essential as effective anti-money laundering (AML) measures are crucial for maintaining the integrity of financial systems and preventing illicit activities, ensure its relevance, effectiveness, and compliance with international standards, ultimately contributing to the prevention and detection of money laundering and the protection of financial systems but even more important is simplifying the act, avoid over-regulation and bureaucracy, addressing privacy concerns, avoiding false positives and unwarranted impact on legitimate transactions, minimising burden on reporting entities so as to avoid injustice.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Review of research paper by Hritik Verma "An analysis of prevention of money laundering act".Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences, VOL.2 ISSUE 1, ISSN (O): 2583-0066 This article offers clarity regarding discussed judgments related to money laundering and delineates the measures taken to tackle this issue.
Despite its prohibition, money laundering remains widespread, with the challenge exacerbated by the limited likelihood of detection due to technological advancements.Effectively preventing money laundering requires a substantial shift in methods and approaches.Despite implementing various control procedures, money launderers can still innovate and evade regulatory measures, underscoring the ongoing need for adaptability.
Notably, efforts to combat money laundering at the branch level of banks are intensifying.The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has successfully established global coordination, legislation, regulations, and enforcement measures.It is crucial to evaluate the impact of money laundering operations in the context of technological advancements.The progression of international standards is aiding the financial sector in aligning with the trade sector.Government's view on PMLA under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) explicitly states that any person who directly or indirectly attempts to engage in, knowingly assists, or is a party to any process or activity linked with the "proceeds of crime" 1 is deemed guilty of the offense of money laundering.A thorough examination of this provision leads to an inevitable conclusion that the offense of money laundering is deemed continuous as long as the individual is directly or indirectly attempting to engage in, knowingly assisting, or being a party to any process or activity associated with the proceeds of crime.
Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) represents a departure from the conventional responsibility placed on the prosecution to establish its case against an accused beyond a reasonable doubt.The prosecution's duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a fundamental aspect of the right of an individual accused of an offense to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not being met by Section 24 of PMLA.
General rule of the extent of proof in a criminal trial is that the prosecution has to establish that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt to hold accused guilty of such offence.However, some of the provisions of IEA raise certain presumptions and shifts the burden of proof on to accused in certain circumstances. 2 The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) incorporates Sections 22 and 23, which introduce presumptions related to specific facts.Section 24 of the PMLA places the burden of proof on the accused, compelling them to establish that the property recovered from them is untainted.This shift in the burden 1.The PMLA defines 'proceeds of crime' as any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a 'scheduled offence' or the value of any such property, or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.The 2019 amendment to the PMLA also clarified that "proceeds of crime" includes property that is not only derived or obtained from the 'scheduled offence' but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.2. PMLA, Section 106.Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-Whenany fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 2f proof under Section 24 of the PMLA is consistent with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the pertinent facts are usually within the specific knowledge of the accused.at a prima facie level, the Court denied him bail because certain private liquor wholesale distributors were found to have made gains due to the change in the excise policy, even though there is no finding regarding the exchange of kickbacks or loss to the public exchequer.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Critical analysis of key provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2022: 1. Proceeds of Crime -Broad definition
The definition of Proceeds of Crime is too broad and not clearly defined but rather loosely interpreted to confiscate all the assets, thereby leading to big interruption to financial operations 2. Burden of Proof on Accused Mere statement of another accused or any person results in summoning and subsequent Burden of Proof on accused makes the life complicated for the accused, taking away the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution.

Overreach by Officers
Officers using their powers disproportionately or in a manner that goes beyond the intended scope of the law may be acting as overreach specially against political opponents etc. by way of overly intrusive or aggressive investigative methods that infringe upon individual rights or privacy, or by way of seizing of assets without proper legal justification or without following due process or without and established link to the money laundering activity (Manish Sisodia case).

Stringent Bail conditions
Analysing case laws on Section 45 of PMLA regarding bail to evaluate if the mini-trial at the stage of adjudication of bail applications can be stopped and the bail provisions be simplified at par with any other financial crime.

Arrest of a person
Under PMLA, the arrest is made mostly on ground of non-cooperation to summons, which is extremely vague and leads to twisting of established procedures of arrests in breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Studying relevant literature
This step involves a thorough examination of existing literature, research papers, articles, and publications related to Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.It aims to understand the current state of knowledge, legal procedures, and emerging situations in the field.

Analysing case laws
Case laws of Hon.Supreme Court of India and various High Courts related to PMLA.Analysing and understanding the judgements helped in understanding the challenges, loopholes and solutions for overall review of PMLA.

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSIONS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 in India was introduced to address money laundering and associated financial crimes.The legislative journey leading to the enactment of the PMLA involved several significant milestones:

International Pressure
The international stage highlighted the necessity for stringent legislation to counter money laundering.International organizations, notably the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), exerted pressure on India to fortify its legal framework in line with global standards.

Recommendations of the Narasimham Committee
The Narasimham Committee on Banking Sector Reforms, commissioned by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 1998, underscored the importance of addressing money laundering concerns within the Indian financial system.These recommendations spurred legislative action.

Introduction of Prevention of Money Laundering Bill
Responding to both international pressure and domestic considerations, the Prevention of Money Laundering Bill was presented in Parliament.The bill aimed to establish a legal framework to prevent money laundering and enable the confiscation of property derived from such activities.

Parliamentary Deliberations and Amendments
The Prevention of Money Laundering Bill underwent extensive deliberations and discussions in both houses of Parliament.Various amendments were suggested and incorporated to strengthen its provisions.

Enactment of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 received presidential assent on January 17, 2003, and became effective on July 1, 2005.The Act was enacted to prevent money laundering and allow for the confiscation of property derived from such activities.

Alignment with International Standards
Enacting the PMLA reflected India's commitment to align its legal framework with international standards, particularly those set by the FATF.The Act aimed to enhance India's ability to combat money laundering and fulfill its global obligations.

Subsequent Amendments
Since its enactment, the PMLA has undergone amendments to address emerging challenges and align with evolving international standards.These amendments have strengthened the Act, expanding its scope to cover a broader range of offenses and activities related to money laundering.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, along with subsequent amendments, establishes a comprehensive legal framework to combat money laundering in India.It grants enforcement agencies the authority to investigate and act against individuals and entities involved in money laundering, contributing to the global effort to curb financial crimes.However, some stringent conditions and unclear provisions have led to accusations of misuse by successive Indian governments and certain officials.The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is alleged to be used against opposition political leaders, various media organizations, and non-profit entities, including Amnesty International.This is purportedly done under the pretext of fulfilling India's obligations as a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental organization focused on combating global money laundering and terrorism financing.

RESEARCH FINDINGS
Money laundering represents a significant threat to financial institutions, which are pivotal for economic progress, as it fosters crime and corruption, thereby impeding economic growth and reducing productivity in the real economy.The predominant focus of global research revolves around the drug trade and terrorist groups as the primary industries involved in money laundering.The consequences become apparent when drug money is successfully recovered, potentially leading to an upsurge in drugs, crime, and violence.The connection between money laundering and terrorism is intricate; terrorists are known to misappropriate funds to evade law enforcement's efforts to track and thwart their planned attacks.Money laundering is not confined to major financial and maritime hubs; it also poses a concern in emerging nations.As emerging markets liberalize their economies and financial sectors, they become vulnerable targets for money laundering operations.Money laundering introduces significant fluctuations in global financial flows, currency rates, and unexpected alterations in money demand.
The years 2022 and 2023 witnessed a series of crucial judicial decisions within the Indian legal system, providing clarity and precision to the intricate aspects of money laundering and its intersection with the PMLA.This research article embarks on an exploratory journey, delving into key judgments from 2022 & 2023, offering insights into the evolving legal landscape and its implications for financial and economic matters in India while opening a door to perform the balancing act in the interest of fair trial and procedures.

Manish Sisodia V. Union of India, AIR 2023 INSC 956
Judgement denying the Bail to Manish Sisodia rendered by a panel of judges, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, was abundant in general statements but lacked in providing relief.The challenge posed by Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is that it compels the Court to undertake an initial scrutiny of the evidence on record to establish the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.In the case of Manish Sisodia, a noteworthy aspect is that, despite challenging most of the charges presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) at a prima facie stage, the Court refused to grant bail.This decision was grounded in the revelation that certain private liquor wholesale distributors had benefited from the alteration in the excise policy, even though there is no conclusive determination regarding the exchange of kickbacks or detriment to the public exchequer.The denial of bail should be based on a methodical examination of facts, the establishment of a prima facie case, and a comprehensive evaluation of the existing evidence.If the court's discussion suggests a lack of evidence supporting a potential conviction, it prompts the crucial question of whether the ruling can be a reliable precedent for other courts nationwide in handling bail-related matters-a concern that baffles every one.

Pankaj Bansal V. Union of India, AIR 2023INSC866
Honourable Supreme Court's Ruling in 'Pankaj Bansal' Offers a Positive development in Exerting Control Over the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in which following important law points were illustrated: 1.Rather than mere oral reading of grounds, the Accused should be informed in writing about the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest.2. The practise of arrest on mere non-cooperation to summons should stop.3.In case the arrest is invalid, then any subsequent remand order will also be invalid.The reverberations of the verdict were swiftly felt in the NewsClick case, where the Delhi High Court, highlighted the parallels between the UAPA and PMLA provisions.The High Court explicitly referenced a pertinent Supreme Court judgment in this context.
The second tenet elucidated in the ruling carries substantial practical implications, particularly in light of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) frequent reliance on "non-cooperation" as grounds for arrest.
A troubling aftermath of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment was the acceptance of any statement made to an ED officer post a Section 50 summons, even if self-incriminating, as admissible evidence.This position erodes the protection enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, especially given the ED's significant coercive powers.Within ED terminology, "cooperation" often connotes a confession from the accused.Pankaj Bansal showcased the Supreme Court's acute understanding of this context, emphatically stating, "In any event, it is not open to the ED to expect an admission of guilt from the person summoned for interrogation and assert that anything short of such admission would be an 'evasive reply'." Another salient aspect of Pankaj Bansal is the Supreme Court's reminder to trial courts, emphasizing their duty to scrutinize the validity of the arrest when remanding the accused.

Anoop Bartaria vs Dy. Director Enforcement, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 2397-2398 OF 2019
It was held by Supreme Court that Decide that, for filing a complaint under the mentioned Act, it is essential for the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused had the awareness that they were involved with the proceeds of crime.The court also decided that the nature of offence of Money Laundering viz section 45 (1) shall be cognizable and non-bailable offences nothing withstanding anything contrary written in Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929
In this case the Court emphasized that the matter falls within the realm of exclusive legislative policy, an arena where the Courts are advised against intervening.The Parliament holds the authority to delineate the offenses included in the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).This prerogative maintains constitutional validity as long as the legislative competence under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India is in place.As a result, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to various provisions and rules instituted under the PMLA.This ruling established that statements provided to officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) are deemed admissible in court as these officers, though possessing all the powers of arrest and seizure akin to police officers, are not technically classified as 'police officers.The judgment endorsed the provisions concerning the presumption of guilt, the shift in the burden of proof, and the rigorous conditions for bail-where one condition implies the Court's near impossibility of being convinced that the accused will refrain from committing future offenses.Additionally, the ruling broadened the interpretation of the term 'money laundering'.Result is that, even before tracing any proceeds of crime, an ED officer can automatically launch investigation upon registration of a predicate offence.
Recognizing potential concerns, the Supreme Court promptly agreed to reassess the judgment, with a specific focus on two aspects.Concurrently, the perception of political bias in the activities of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) grew more pronounced.Though concerns regarding the independence of the ED persisted without resolution.
According to a study, there has been a quadruple increase in cases registered by the ED since 2014, and 95% of these cases involve opposition parties.Additionally, reports indicate an extremely low conviction rate in ED cases, with only 23 convictions out of 5422 cases recorded since 2005 (as of July 2022), constituting a mere 0.5%.Earlier this year, a collective petition by 14 opposition parties contended that the ED was being misused by the Central Government.

CONCLUSION
In summary, a comprehensive examination of five key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has highlighted significant challenges and potential areas for reform within the legal framework.
The provisions under examination, namely the expansive definition of "Proceeds of Crime," the imposition of the burden of proof on the accused, concerns regarding potential overreach by officers, and the rigorous bail conditions, have brought forth crucial issues that warrant careful consideration and evaluation.The broad definition of "Proceeds of Crime" has been subject to criticism due to its lack of clarity, posing the risk of disruptions in financial operations.
Placing the burden of proof on the accused, particularly by relying on statements from other accused or individuals, introduces complexity for those facing charges, potentially infringing upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The possibility of overreach by officers, particularly in cases involving political opponents, has been a contentious point.The use of investigative methods that may impinge upon individual rights, privacy, or involve asset seizures without proper legal justification raises concerns about the potential abuse of power.Stringent bail conditions, especially under Section 45 of the PMLA, have been scrutinized to assess whether the mini-trial at the bail adjudication stage can be streamlined, aligning it with procedures for other financial crimes.
Despite subsequent amendments addressing emerging challenges, concerns persist regarding potential misuse and political bias.Key judgments, such as those in the Manish Sisodia case and the Pankaj Bansal case, provide valuable legal insights, emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process, protecting individual rights, and scrutinizing arrests and remand orders.
The ongoing discourse about the independence of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its perceived misuse, as evidenced by a notable increase in cases involving opposition parties, remains a critical aspect requiring further attention and resolution.
The research methodology, incorporating the study of relevant literature and the analysis of case laws, has contributed to a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and nuances surrounding the PMLA.
In conclusion, while the PMLA plays a pivotal role in combating money laundering, the identified issues underscore the significance of continuous review, reform, and a balanced approach to ensure justice, protect individual rights, and maintain the integrity of financial regulations.The legal landscape regarding money laundering will persist in evolving, necessitating a nuanced and adaptive response to emerging challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS
After analysing the existing literature and pertinent case laws, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. Refinement of "Proceeds of Crime" Definition o Propose a more precise definition of "Proceeds of Crime" in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to mitigate potential ambiguity that could disrupt financial operations.
o Seek input from legal experts, financial institutions, and relevant stakeholders to draft a clear, comprehensive definition aligned with international standards.

Reassessment of Burden of Proof
o Evaluate the burden of proof on the accused, especially concerning reliance on statements from other accused or individuals.o Explore ensuring a reasonable burden of proof that balances the need for a fair trial while safeguarding fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
o Consider amendments for a more equitable distribution of the burden of proof between the prosecution and the accused.

Safeguards Against Overreach by Officers
o Introduce additional checks and balances to prevent potential overreach by officers, particularly in cases involving political opponents.o Establish clear guidelines and protocols for investigative methods to protect individual rights and privacy, ensuring legally justified asset seizures and adherence to due process.o Institute an independent oversight mechanism to review and monitor the actions of law enforcement officers in money laundering cases.

Review of Stringent Bail Conditions
o Conduct a comprehensive review of stringent bail conditions, particularly under Section 45 of the PMLA, to assess their necessity and impact on accused individuals.o Consider aligning bail procedures for money laundering cases with those applicable to other financial crimes, eliminating perceived bias or undue hardship.o Explore alternatives to streamline the bail adjudication process without compromising the integrity of investigations.

Periodic Review and Amendment of PMLA
o Establish a periodic review mechanism to assess the effectiveness and relevance of the PMLA, addressing emerging challenges and evolving international standards.o Promote understanding of individual rights and legal safeguards, fostering cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the public.

International Collaboration
o Collaborate with international organizations and jurisdictions to share best practices, experiences, and expertise in combating money laundering.o Participate actively in international forums to stay updated on global standards and contribute to shaping international efforts against money laundering.9. Consultative Approach o Adopt a consultative and inclusive approach in the policymaking process, seeking input from legal experts, civil society organizations, financial institutions, and the public.o Engage in open dialogues and consultations to address concerns and gather diverse perspectives on proposed reforms.

Continuous Monitoring and Adaptation
o Establish mechanisms for continuous monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of reforms.o Be prepared to adapt the legal framework to address new challenges, technological advancements, and changes in the nature of financial crimes.
In summary, these recommendations aim to strike a balance between the imperative to combat money laundering effectively and the protection of individual rights and procedural fairness.Continuous vigilance, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to periodic review and reform are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the legal framework surrounding money laundering.

SCOPE OF FUTURE RESEARCH
The provisions within the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) appear notably stringent, potentially limiting the opportunities for the accused in alignment with diverse constitutional provisions.This calls for an in-depth exploration into the rationalization of these key provisions, ensuring they align with the laws of the land while steadfastly addressing the menace of money laundering.The anticipated review of select PMLA provisions by the Honourable Supreme Court of India is a positive development, and it is recommended that broader involvement from the Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive branches be actively encouraged.
Violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), relying solely on verbal communication for arrest is considered inadequate.Enforcement Directorate officers have consistently acted in contravention of these provisions for a significant period.
Review of submissions by Tushar, Mehta, Solicitor Gen. of India."OVERVIEW OF PMLA / DEFINING MONEY LAUNDERING" Note II, SCObserver 2121/10/Note-2 Submissions, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION, TRANSFERRED CASE (CRL) NO. 4 OF 2018, IN THE MATTER OF:-DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT V. RAJBHUSHAN DIXIT & ANR

12 o 6 . 7 .
• Email: editor@ijfmr.comIJFMR23069437 Volume 5, Issue 6, November-December 2023 Encourage parliamentary discussions and debates on potential amendments to the PMLA, involving legal experts, lawmakers, and representatives from financial institutions.Enhanced Independence and Transparency of Enforcement Directorate (ED) o Strengthen the independence of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by ensuring its actions are free from political influence.o Introduce measures to enhance transparency in the functioning of the ED, including regular reporting and disclosure of cases handled, convictions secured, and actions taken.Public Awareness and Education o Conduct public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the purpose, procedures, and implications of the PMLA.
Article by Sebastian, Manu "The Bizarre Logic In Supreme Court's Judgment Denying Bail To Manish Sisodia"4The bane created by Section 45 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is that it forces the Court to undertake a preliminary examination of the evidence on record to ascertain if there is a prima facie case against the accused.The curious aspect in the Manish Sisodia case is that despite debunking most of the charges of the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) This section was subsequently amended vide Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f.19.04.2018, wherein the reference to offences under Part A of the Schedule was substituted by the expression "under this Act".Post this amendment, the language of Section 45 was brought on par with other special laws like TADA/MCOCA/Companies Act which provided for twin conditions for grant of bail.
Appeal Nos 3051-3052 of 2023 Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos.9220-21 of 2023 Pankaj Bansal … Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors.… Respondents With Criminal Appeal Nos.3053-3054 of 2023 Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos.9275-76 of 2023Supreme Court of India in Pankaj Bansal V. Union of India & Ors held that the acknowledged fact is that the Enforcement Directorate's Investigating Officer simply recited or allowed the reading of the grounds for the appellants' arrest and concluded at that point, a contention disputed by the appellants.Since this mode of communication is deemed insufficient to meet the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the 2002 Act, we unequivocally assert that their arrest did not adhere to the provisions of Section 19(1) of the 2002 Act.Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the secretive actions of the Enforcement Directorate in pursuing action against the appellants, recording the second ECIR immediately after they obtained interim protection regarding the first ECIR, does not find favour, as it appears to be an arbitrary exercise of power.In essence, the arrest of the appellants and, consequently, their remand to the Enforcement Directorate's custody and subsequently to judicial custody, cannot be justified.Review of Case Law -Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs UOI (2018) 11 SCC 1The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs UOI (2018) 11 SCC 1, invalidated Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in its entirety, deeming it in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Nevertheless, the Government of India subsequently re-enacted the provision with dual bail conditions. 3.Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs UOI (2018) 11 SCC 1 Section 45 of PMLA was struck down as a whole by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case cited as Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs UOI (2018) 11 SCC 1, on the basis of being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.The 4. https://www.livelaw.in/articles/bizarre-logic-in-supreme-courts-judgment-denying-bail-to-manish-sisodia-242329Article by Sabestian Manu in Livelaw dt.16 Nov 2023 5.