Money-laundering law upheld: definitions, attachment powers, burden-shifting and bail conditions survived constitutional challenge.

Provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were upheld against constitutional challenge: the Court held that "proceeds of crime" is confined to property derived from a scheduled offence, Section 3 includes a knowledge element, and the scheme does not extend to innocent possession. Provisional attachment, adjudication and confiscation were sustained because the Act requires recorded reasons, notice, hearing and reasoned findings. The inclusion of specified IPC offences in the Schedule was treated as a valid legislative choice. The burden-shifting presumption and bail conditions were also upheld as rebuttable and procedurally regulated. Quashing of the ECIR was rejected, while the challenge under Section 50 was left open pending larger-bench consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the definitions and offence provisions under Sections 2(u) and 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were unconstitutional for lacking mens rea and for being overly expansive; (ii) whether Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were unconstitutional for authorising penalty, provisional attachment and adjudication on the basis of a reason to believe; (iii) whether Section 13 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 was invalid for bringing certain IPC offences within the Schedule; (iv) whether Section 24 and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were unconstitutional for reversing the burden of proof and restricting bail; and (v) whether the Enforcement Case Information Report was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the definitions and offence provisions under Sections 2(u) and 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were unconstitutional for lacking mens rea and for being overly expansive;

Analysis: The expression "proceeds of crime" was held to be confined to property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The definition was read with the object of the enactment, namely, to prevent laundering at its inception. The Court held that Section 2(u) does not postulate knowledge or mens rea for identifying proceeds of crime, while Section 3 itself contains the element of knowledge through the words "knowingly" and "knowingly assists".

The challenge of arbitrariness was rejected because the provision targets only proceeds of crime and not every property in the hands of any person. The offence under Section 3 was treated as independent, but not as extending to innocent possession. The legislative scheme was found to be directed against laundering activity and not against innocent persons.

Conclusion: The challenge to Sections 2(u) and 3 failed and the provisions were upheld.

Issue (ii): whether Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were unconstitutional for authorising penalty, provisional attachment and adjudication on the basis of a reason to believe;

Analysis: Section 4 was found to be a consequential penal provision for the offence under Section 3 and not unconstitutional merely because it prescribes rigorous imprisonment and fine. Section 5 was held to contain safeguards because attachment can be made only on recorded reasons, on the basis of material in possession, for a limited period, and after the scheduled offence has reached the stage contemplated by the provision. The person concerned also retains enjoyment of immovable property during attachment.

Section 8 was upheld because it provides notice, opportunity of hearing, consideration of reply and material, and a reasoned finding by the Adjudicating Authority before confirmation of attachment and eventual confiscation. The Court concluded that the scheme incorporates procedural fairness and does not offend Articles 14, 19 or 300A.

Conclusion: The challenges to Sections 4, 5 and 8 failed and those provisions were upheld.

Issue (iii): whether Section 13 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 was invalid for bringing certain IPC offences within the Schedule;

Analysis: The inclusion of specified IPC offences in the Schedule was treated as a legislative policy choice consistent with the object of the Act. The Court held that the scheduled offence and the money-laundering offence may be intertwined, and that the Act can operate independently of the predicate offence. The mere inclusion of IPC offences in the Schedule was not shown to be unrelated to the statutory object or unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The challenge to Section 13 failed and the provision was upheld.

Issue (iv): whether Section 24 and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were unconstitutional for reversing the burden of proof and restricting bail;

Analysis: Section 24 was held to create only a rebuttable presumption and to operate as a statutory safeguard by requiring the person charged to explain the source of the property, after which the prosecution must discharge the burden if the explanation is accepted. The burden-shifting was therefore not treated as unconstitutional.

Section 45 was held to regulate bail by imposing additional conditions while leaving the final discretion with the Court. The statutory test of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence on bail was treated as a legitimate legislative restriction and not an arbitrary denial of bail. The provision was found consistent with the criminal process and the object of the enactment.

Conclusion: The challenges to Sections 24 and 45 failed and those provisions were upheld.

Issue (v): whether the Enforcement Case Information Report was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction;

Analysis: The prayer to quash the ECIR was not accepted because the Court held that the proper remedy was not invoked in the manner sought, and that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be used to interfere with the proceeding in the circumstances shown. No separate basis for quashing was made out on the record before the Court.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing the ECIR was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenges to the core provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were rejected, the limited challenge to the schedule amendment failed, and the writ petition was dismissed. The challenge under Section 50 was not decided on merits because the issue was left open in view of the pending larger-bench consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory scheme aimed at preventing money-laundering is not unconstitutional merely because it permits provisional attachment, a rebuttable presumption, or bail restrictions, where the provisions contain recorded-reason safeguards, notice and hearing, and operate only against proceeds of crime.

---