Centre bats for Money Laundering Act in SC; says it helped bring back ₹18,000Cr

Amid criticism over potential misuse of the recent changes to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Centre on Wednesday (February 23) told the Supreme Court that it has facilitated return of ₹18,000 crore to banks from Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, using the provisions of the very same Act.

A total of 4,700 PMLA cases amounting to ₹ 67,000 crore are still pending before the apex court, the government said.

A three-judge Bench headed by Justice A. M. Khanwilkar is dealing with a batch of pleas concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of the PMLA.

Several petitioners have approached the apex court citing potential misuse of the latest amendments to the PMLA which include strict conditions for granting bail, non-communication of reasons for arrest, etc.

The Centre drew comparison with the West, arguing that very few cases are being taken up for probe in India under the PMLA. The UK filed 7,900 cases under the Money Laundering Act in a year while the US filed 1,532 and Russia filed 2,764 cases. In comparison, India filed only 4,700 PMLA cases, the Centre argued in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court on February 22 said the very concept of the offence of money-laundering in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is “very wide” and any activity connected with the proceeds of crime is encompassed within the expression of Section 3 of the legislation.

Also read: Banks recovered over Rs 13,000 cr from asset sale of Nirav Modi, Vijay Mallya: FM

Section 3 of the PMLA says whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of the offence of money-laundering.

“The fact of the matter is that the very concept of the offence of money-laundering in our enactment is very broad, very wide. It is different. It is not based on one word or one expression alone,” said the Bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C. T. Ravikumar.

“So, any activity connected with the proceeds of crime is well taken over, is encompassed within this expression of Section 3,” the Bench observed.