Some of the Recent Important Judgements of the Supreme Court Pertaining to PMLA

 The Supreme Court of India has issued several key judgments in recent years concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). These rulings provide important clarifications on various aspects of money laundering, procedural safeguards, and the scope of the law. Below are some of the landmark judgments:

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Case (State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294)

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that merely possessing unaccounted property acquired through legal means does not automatically render it as "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA. For a property to be classified as proceeds of crime, it must be directly or indirectly derived from criminal activities connected to a scheduled offense. This ruling also indicated that properties attached by investigative agencies are not all considered proceeds of crime unless they meet this direct or indirect connection to criminal activity.

2. Directorate of Enforcement v. Padmanabhan Kishore (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1940)

In this 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of intent in determining proceeds of crime. It held that handing over money without the intent to bribe does not constitute bribery under money laundering laws. While it could be categorized as misappropriation, a bribe specifically requires intent to influence an official action. This judgment serves to clarify the nuanced role intent plays in money laundering cases.

3. Murali Krishna Chakrala Case (Crl.M.P.No.2864 of 2022)

This judgment brought clarity for Chartered Accountants and Panel Advocates who certify or provide opinions based on client-provided documents. The court held that these professionals cannot be prosecuted for issuing certifications based on documents they were not required to authenticate. However, if there is a duty to verify authenticity and this duty is neglected, prosecution may be warranted. This judgment emphasizes the limitations of liability for professionals involved in financial assessments.

4. Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of EIEL Case (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3703)

The Supreme Court clarified that a provisional attachment order by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not leave a corporate debtor or a Resolution Professional powerless. The court held that such orders do not grant the ED superior rights over the property in question. The ruling reaffirmed that legal recourse is available to corporate debtors and Resolution Professionals, even in cases where ED has issued attachment orders.

5. V. Senthil Balaji Case (Cr Appl 2284-2285 of 2023)

This judgment underscored the critical importance of procedural compliance under PMLA. It was ruled that any non-compliance with established procedures during arrests under the Act could render the arrest invalid. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for adherence to procedural protocols as a safeguard against arbitrary action and to uphold the rights of individuals under investigation.

6. Pankaj Bansal Case (Cr Appl 3051-3052 of 2023)

In this judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Enforcement Directorate must adhere strictly to procedural mandates under the PMLA. The ruling called for transparency, fairness, and compliance with constitutional and statutory guidelines during investigations and arrests. This judgment reinforced accountability within the ED, stressing the need for investigative bodies to act within the legal framework.

These judgments collectively contribute to the evolving landscape of money laundering laws in India, enhancing the clarity on procedural and substantive aspects of the PMLA and reinforcing safeguards for due process.