Penalties for 54 alleged counterfeit-note transactions must be assessed per transaction; Section 12A penalties set aside

AT partially allowed the appeal. The tribunal held that penalties for non-reporting of 54 alleged counterfeit-note transactions must be assessed per transaction, not per monthly report; imposing Rs.5,40,000 was illegal and the minimum penalty per transaction is Rs.10,000. Separately, the tribunal set aside the Rs.2,00,000 penalty under Section 12A (Rs.1,00,000 each) because the appellant bank had replied and submitted the required report, which the Director, FIU had ignored. The remainder of the impugned order was upheld only to the extent consistent with these findings.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a monetary penalty under Section 13 (for contraventions of Chapter) can be imposed for each individual transaction/instance of non-furnishing or delayed furnishing of information under Section 12 read with Rule 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, or must be limited to a penalty per reporting month.

2. The legal effect and scope of the phrase "for each failure" in Section 13 read with Rule 8(4) - whether "each failure" refers to each transaction, each monthly report, or each day of delay.

3. Whether mens rea (deliberate, contumacious or dishonest conduct) is a necessary element before imposing civil penalties under the Act and Rules, and the extent to which judicial discretion permits withholding penalty despite established contraventions.

4. Whether penalty under Section 12A (for non-furnishing of information called for by FIU/authorities) was rightly imposed where the respondent produced a reply/return (letter dated 26.12.2018) asserting no detection of counterfeit notes for specified years.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Penalty per transaction vs. per monthly report

Legal framework: Section 12(1)(b) imposes duty on reporting entities to furnish prescribed information to the Director (FIU). Rule 3 lists transaction categories to be maintained; Rule 8(1) requires furnishing information "every month ... by the 15th day of the succeeding month." Section 13(2)(d) empowers the Director to impose monetary penalty "not less than ten thousand rupees but may extend to one lakh rupees for each failure."

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on its prior order (Noida Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd.) and surveyed appellate authority holdings distinguishing criminal/quasi-criminal penalty principles (Hindustan Steel) from civil regulatory penalties (SEBI precedents) to conclude civil liability is attracted on proof of contravention.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal construed "each failure" in Section 13 as capable of referring to failure to furnish information in respect of each transaction falling within Rule 3 categories. It read Rule 8(4) as clarifying that a delay of each day or each day in rectifying a mis-reported transaction constitutes a separate violation, thereby supporting a granular approach to counting failures. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 7(3) and Rule 8(1) together impose an ongoing duty to detect and report specified transactions, and where the record shows non-reporting of 54 FICN/CCR instances, those constitute discrete failures attracting penalty per instance.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a reporting entity fails to furnish information in respect of discrete transactions specified under Rule 3, each such non-furnished transaction may constitute a separate "failure" for imposition of penalty under Section 13 read with Rule 8(4). Obiter - Discussion distinguishing Hindustan Steel and analogous authority on mens rea provides context but is not the sole legal basis for this specific construction.

Conclusion: Penalty was lawfully imposed for each of the 54 non-reported forged/counterfeit currency transactions at the statutory minimum per failure; imposition of Rs. 5,40,000 (54 × Rs. 10,000) was not illegal on the ground urged.

Issue 2 - Meaning and application of "each failure" and Rule 8(4)

Legal framework: Section 13(2)(d) (penalty "for each failure") and Rule 8(4) (delay of each day or delay in rectifying mis-reported transaction constitutes separate violation).

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on its prior consideration which interpreted "each failure" in light of Rule 8(4) to permit counting failures at the transactional level and to treat defective reporting as non-reporting.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that Rule 8(4) demonstrates legislative intent to treat delays and rectification failures cumulatively and individually. The term "transaction" (Rule 2(h)) is broad - includes deposit, withdrawal, exchange or transfer - and thus each transaction falling under Rule 3 can be the subject of an independent reporting obligation. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that only a per-month penalty could be imposed, observing that multiple reportable transactions across different months may each represent a separate failure.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reading Section 13 together with Rule 8(4) permits imposition of penalty calibrated to each reportable transaction or each day's default as appropriate; defective electronic filing that results in rejection equates to non-compliance for counting failures. Obiter - Comment that counting each day's delay could produce larger penalties (and the impugned penalty was comparatively moderate) is explanatory.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's construction gives effect to Rule 8(4); counting 54 separate non-reported transactions for penalty purposes complies with statutory scheme.

Issue 3 - Requirement of mens rea and judicial discretion to withhold penalty

Legal framework: Section 13 confers authority to impose penalties; no express mens rea requirement is present in Sections 12, 12A or 13 or in the Rules for civil penalties. Authorities dealing with civil/regulatory penalties (SEBI jurisprudence) hold mens rea unnecessary where statute imposes strict reporting obligations.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal reviewed Hindustan Steel (criminal/quasi-criminal context requiring consideration of mens rea) and subsequent SEBI-related precedents that decline a mens rea requirement for civil regulatory penalties. The Tribunal followed the latter line, distinguishing Hindustan Steel as inapposite.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that penalties under the PMLA framework are civil in nature and attracted upon establishment of contravention; the subjective intention of the reporting entity is irrelevant unless statute requires mens rea. While statutory discretion exists, it must be exercised judicially; when contraventions are established and represent systemic or continuous non-compliance, imposition of penalty is appropriate and not to be lightly replaced by mere warnings.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - In the absence of an express mens rea requirement, civil penalties under the Act and Rules follow proof of contravention; discretion not to impose penalty is to be exercised only after weighing relevant circumstances and cannot be routine relief to persistently non-complying entities. Obiter - Observations on the undesirable consequence of treating venial or technical breaches the same as systemic non-compliance clarify proportionality concerns.

Conclusion: Mens rea is not required for imposing penalties under the Act and Rules; given continuous contraventions and delayed corrective action, imposition of penalty was not disproportionate or outside discretionary bounds.

Issue 4 - Penalty under Section 12A where a response/return was filed

Legal framework: Section 12A requires furnishing information called for by FIU/authorities; failure attracts penalty under Section 13. Procedural fairness requires the adjudicating authority to consider documentary replies demonstrating compliance.

Precedent treatment: No separate precedent was necessary; the Tribunal applied record review and statutory fairness principles.

Interpretation and reasoning: The record contained the appellant's letter dated 26.12.2018 replying to the FIU letter of 31.10.2018 and asserting no counterfeit currency detected for specified years. The Tribunal found that the Director overlooked this on-record response when imposing two penalties of Rs. 1,00,000 each under Section 12A. Where documentary proof of the specific response exists and is on record, the finding of contravention under Section 12A cannot be sustained.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalty under Section 12A cannot be sustained where the reporting entity produces on record the information specifically called for and the adjudicator erroneously ignores such documentary compliance. Obiter - None.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under Section 12A were vacated because the required information had been furnished and was on record; the impugned order was modified to set aside that portion of the penalty while upholding penalties for the proven transaction-level non-reporting.

---