Due to the increase in arbitrary powers of the enforcement directorate (ED), the courts have laid down various percents to curb such powers while enforcing Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the ED.
Table of Contents – PMLA Judgements
Supreme Court
Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam: ‘He’s Not a Terrorist’ – Supreme Court Condemns ED’s Midnight Arrest of Ex-IAS Officer
The Supreme Court has condemned the Midnight Arrest of an Ex-IAS Officer by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection to the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam and emphasised that the Ex-IAS was not a terrorist.
Former Chhattisgarh bureaucrat Anil Tuteja was permitted to withdraw his appeal contesting the validity of his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam by the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Sanction From Govt. Mandatory To Take Cognizance Against Public Servants For Money Laundering Offences: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that sickness or infirmity are valid grounds of bail for an accused under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra has observed that the petitioner, Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, former chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank is 67 years old and has spent nearly a year and three months in custody. Based on the medical evaluation which has been provided by the Medical Team at Sir J J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, it is evident that the petitioner fulfills the threshold required for being enlarged on bail.
Delhi High Court
Collection Of Funds In An Illegal Way To Commit Scheduled Offence In Future Does Not Amount To Money Laundering: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court in the case of Parvez Ahmed Versus ED has held that collection of funds in an illegal way to commit scheduled offence in future does not amount to money laundering.
The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the funds collected are not proceeds of crime and can be proceeds of crime only when they were generated as a result of scheduled offence. The case set up by the ED is putting the cart before the horse.
The Delhi High Court has held that where it is evident that the trial is not likely to conclude in a reasonable time, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be allowed to become a shackle which leads to unreasonably long detention of accused persons.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while granting bail has observed that the right of liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 is a sacrosanct right which needs to be protected and duly enforced even in cases where stringent provisions have been made applicable by way of special legislation. The stringent provisions would have to be interpreted with due regard to Article 21 and in case of a conflict, the stringent provisions, such as section 45 of the PMLA, would have to give way.
Calcutta High Court
Co-Accused Statement Under S. 50 Of PMLA Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court in the case of Sujay Krishna Bhadra v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II has held that the co-accused statement under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not a substantive piece of evidence.
The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh while granting bail to Sujay Krishna Bhadra Accused in Recruitment Scam the person accused in has observed that since the case primarily depends on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D, there is no scope for the petitioner to tamper with the same. With regard to the apprehension that the petitioner shall influence witnesses or may abscond if released on bail, stringent conditions may be imposed upon him to address the concern.
Allahabad High Court
Restriction Under Section 45 Of PMLA Not Applicable To Constitutional Courts In Granting Bail To Money Laundering Accused: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the restriction under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not applicable to constitutional courts in granting bail to money laundering accused.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi has observed that the restriction contained in Section 45 of PMLA that bail cannot be granted to a person accused of an offence under the PMLA without recording a prima facie satisfaction of innocence of the applicant, is not applicable to the Constitutional Courts in view of the harmonious interpretation of Sections 44 and 45 of PMLA and, therefore, irrespective of the fate of the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court need not record a prima facie satisfaction of innocence of the applicants.
Allahabad High Court Comes Down Heavily On Advocate Of PMLA Accused For Sending Emails To Enforcement Directorate
The Allahabad high court comes down heavily on advocate of accused involved in Prevention Of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for sending emails to enforcement directorate (ED).
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal has observed that the action of counsel(s) for the applicant of sending emails directly to the Investigating Officer was not proper and cannot be appreciated. The investigating agency was duly represented by its Counsel/Standing Counsel right from the first day and were expected to comply with any direction(s) given by the Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
S. 19 Opinion Formed By ED Merely Based On Co-Accused’s Statement Is Inadmissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Accused Under PMLA
The Madhya Pradesh High Court while granting the bail to the accused under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) held that opinion formed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 19 of the PMLA merely based on the co-accused’s statement is inadmissible.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
PMLA | Interrogation By ED For About 14 hours And 40 minutes Not Heroic Rather Against Human Rights: Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that interrogation by the ED (Enforcement Directorate) for about 14 hours and 40 minutes is not heroic, rather it is against human rights.
The bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu has observed that as per the case of ED itself, petitioner was issued notice/summons under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and in pursuance of, he duly appeared in the Zonal Office of E.D at Gurugram on 19.07.2024 at 11:00 a.m and he was constantly interrogated uptill 1:40 a.m (20.07.2024) for 14 hours and 40 minutes, which is not heroic on the part of E.D; rather it is against the dignity of a human being.
