Court upholds constitutionality of Prevention of Money Laundering Act amendments aligning with international obligations

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including amendments made by the 2013 Amendment Act. The court found the amendments aligned with international obligations and aimed at combating money laundering effectively. The petitions challenging various sections of the Act were dismissed, affirming the legality of the provisions under scrutiny.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act).
2. Interpretation and implications of amendments made to the PML Act, particularly by the Amendment Act of 2013.
3. Procedural and substantive safeguards under the PML Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 3:
The petitioners argued that the amendment to Section 3, which included the phrase "including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use," was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the amendment did not render the section unconstitutional as it still required establishing that the proceeds of crime were knowingly involved in money laundering. The amendment was justified by recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

2. Constitutional Validity of Section 5:
The petitioners contended that the amended Section 5 gave wide powers to authorities to attach properties even of those not accused of scheduled offenses. The court noted that the section provided for provisional attachment for a limited period of 180 days and required confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The safeguards in place, such as the need for a complaint to be filed within 30 days, rendered the section constitutionally valid.

3. Constitutional Validity of Section 8:
The petitioners argued that the amendment to Section 8 allowed for proceedings under the PML Act even if the accused was acquitted of the scheduled offense, which they claimed was illogical. The court held that the definition of "proceeds of crime" could extend to property used in the commission of an offense under the Act or any scheduled offense. The amendment aimed to treat money laundering as a standalone offense, which was not arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights.

4. Constitutional Validity of Section 9:
The petitioners claimed that Section 9 denied a statutory challenge to the order of confiscation. The court clarified that an appeal was still available against the order of confiscation, and the section merely provided for the consequence of a finding of guilt.

5. Constitutional Validity of Sections 17, 18, and 19:
The petitioners challenged these sections on the grounds that officers empowered to arrest were not police officers and that actions could be taken based on a report under Section 157 Cr.P.C. The court found that the power of search, seizure, and arrest was essential for investigating economic offenses and was controlled by other provisions of the Cr.P.C. The court upheld the sections as constitutionally valid.

6. Constitutional Validity of Section 23:
The petitioners argued that the amendment to Section 23 allowed for presumptions in interconnected transactions even if the scheduled offense resulted in acquittal. The court held that the amendment aimed to treat money laundering as independent of the scheduled offense, which was constitutionally valid.

7. Constitutional Validity of Section 24:
The petitioners contended that Section 24, which placed the burden of proof on the accused, was against criminal jurisprudence. The court found that similar provisions existed in other laws, such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The section was upheld as constitutionally valid.

8. Constitutional Validity of Section 44:
The petitioners argued that Section 44, which mandated joint trials for scheduled offenses and money laundering offenses, was arbitrary and violated the right to a speedy trial. The court found no material evidence of any incongruous situations arising from joint trials and upheld the section as constitutionally valid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions of the PML Act, including the amendments made by the Amendment Act of 2013. The court found that the amendments were in line with international obligations and aimed at effectively combating money laundering.

---