Jurisdictional Thresholds in Money Laundering Prosecutions: The Requirement of a Prior FIR

 I. Introduction

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) serves as a specialized legislation aimed at combating the laundering of proceeds derived from criminal activity. A foundational principle of the PMLA is that the offence of money laundering (Section 3) is derivative—it relies on the existence of a "scheduled offence" (or predicate offence).

A critical legal question often arises in cases where the scheduled offence is not recorded via a First Information Report (FIR) by the police but is instead pursued through a private complaint filed by an individual before a Magistrate. This analysis examines whether the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has the jurisdiction to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and file a prosecution complaint under the PMLA based solely on a private complaint regarding a scheduled offence, absent any police FIR or complaint by an authorized investigating agency.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

II. The Legal Issue

Print Page

Understanding Criminal Activity Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

 Money laundering is a serious offence that involves disguising the origins of illegally obtained money to make it appear legitimate. Central to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, is the concept of criminal activity, which forms the foundation for prosecuting money laundering offences. But what exactly constitutes criminal activity under the PMLA? This article explores the meaning of criminal activity under the Act, its connection with predicate offences, and the implications for money laundering cases.

What is Criminal Activity Under the PMLA?

Print Page

Supreme Court: Clean Acquittal Of Accused After Long Undertrial Custody May Give Rise To Claim For Compensation

  There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the Accused after very long incarceration as an under trial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the Accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the Accused Under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Senthil Balaji judgment- Requirement Of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions

 Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well-settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception." These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the Accused without trial for an unreasonably long time.

 {Para 25}

26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb   MANU/SC/0046/2021 : 2021:INSC:50 : (2021) 3 SCC 713, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. We have already referred to paragraph 17 of the said decision, which lays down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is that if, because of such provisions, incarceration of an undertrial Accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, the provisions may be exposed to the vice of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Print Page