Court quashes Enforcement Case Information Reports under Prevention of Money Laundering Act

The court quashed the Enforcement Case Information Reports and order of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in multiple writ petitions. It held that since the alleged offenses were committed before being included as scheduled offenses under the Act, the actions were without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that individuals cannot be prosecuted for offenses not listed as scheduled offenses under the Act. The court also emphasized the necessity of a conviction before initiating enforcement actions. Consequently, the court allowed all writ petitions and annulled the enforcement actions and attachment orders against the petitioners.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to lodging and enforcing of Enforcement Case Information Report and order of attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The judgment involved multiple writ petitions challenging the actions of authorities in lodging and enforcing an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and order of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The main contention raised was that the offenses alleged were not scheduled offenses under the PML Act, thus questioning the jurisdiction to prosecute under the Act.

In the first writ petition, the petitioner argued that the offenses alleged were committed before they were included as scheduled offenses under the PML Act. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the alleged offenses were not scheduled offenses until June 1, 2009, while the offenses were allegedly committed between June 21, 2007, and May 15, 2009. The court examined the definitions of 'money laundering,' 'proceeds of crime,' and 'scheduled offense' under the PML Act.

The Assistant Solicitor General contended that the proceedings could continue under the PML Act retrospectively for civil offenses. However, the court held that since the offenses were committed before being included in the schedule of the PML Act, the ECIR and order of attachment were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be prosecuted for offenses not listed as scheduled offenses under the PML Act.

In another set of writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the actions taken against them under the amended PML Act. The court reiterated that theft or illegal mining were not scheduled offenses under the PML Act, leading to the quashing of the actions initiated against these petitioners as well. The court emphasized the importance of a conviction before registering an ECIR and passing attachment orders.

Ultimately, the court allowed all writ petitions and quashed the actions initiated by the enforcement authorities against the petitioners, including the attachment orders. The judgment highlighted the significance of offenses being listed as scheduled offenses under the PML Act for invoking its provisions and prosecuting individuals accordingly.

---