Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Friday, April 19, 2024

Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Key Amendments Brought In By The Finance Act, 2019.

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, May 1, 20, 14:06, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
4 out of 5 with 3 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 8477
This Article Apprises Subjects With Various Key Amendments In The Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

In India, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter also referred as PMLA) is one of the most methodical legislation concocted to combat money laundering in India. PMLA and the Rules notified there under came into force with effect from the 1st day of July, 2005.

The preamble to the act opines, that it is an act devised to:

  1. Prevent money laundering,
  2. Provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in laundered money,
  3. Punish those who commit the offence of money laundering.


There are three stages to a transaction of money-laundering:

  • The first stage is Placement, where the criminals place the proceeds of the crime into normal financial system.
  • The second stage is Layering, where money introduced into the normal financial system is layered or spread into various transactions within the financial system so that any link with the origin of the wealth is lost.
  • The third stage is Integration, where the benefit or proceeds of crime are available with the criminals as untainted money.


The definition of money laundering is provided u/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002, which states that:
whosoever: directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists, knowingly is party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the Proceeds Of Crime, including it's concealment or possession or acquisition or use and projecting and claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of Money Laundering.

It therefore, emerges that the definition is a very wide definition and is not exhaustive and almost any kind of dealing with the proceeds/fruits of crime, is brought within the scope of the section.

The word Proceeds Of Crime has been underlined above because of the imperative nature it carries as the offence of money laundering as defined above and liability for punishment u/s 4 is attracted only when the laundered property falls within definition of ‘proceeds from crime'. The newly inserted explanation and the amended section read as under:

 Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, defines the term as to mean any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity related to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property.

The PMLA also enumerates a list of offences which are classified as ‘scheduled offences' constitute as ‘crimes'. The growing number of financial crimes and high profile embezzlement have become a matter of grave concern. As a result of which,  he Finance Act, 2019, has introduced few amendments to the PMLA to curb the same.

The Amendments provide stringent and in certain cases even draconian directives for investigation, seizure, confiscation and adjudication. The Amendments also apprises the befuddled lot on certain required clarifications on ambiguities that existed prior to the amendments. It is significant to note that the amendments have been made by inserting an ‘Explanation'.

Key Amendments:

  1. Explanation to Section 2 (u) inserted:
    This Explanation clarifies the position of ‘proceeds of crime'. Now, ‘proceeds of crime' will be understood to relate to any property that directly or indirectly derived or obtained through an activity relatable to scheduled offences.

    Accordingly, offence of money laundering is not an independent crime but in sooth depends upon another crime, which is known as the ‘scheduled offence' the proceeds of which are made the subject matter of crime of money laundering.
     
  2. Explanation to Section 3:
    Section 3 of PMLA relates to offences of money laundering. The Explanation u/s mentions, a person shall be guilty of money laundering if the person is directly involved or is knowingly a party to one or more of the following processes, connected with the ‘proceeds of crime':

    Concealment, (b) Possession, (c) Acquisition, (d) Use, (e) Projecting as untainted property, (f) Claiming it as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever.
    The Explanation also states that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of the crime. Accordingly, the entire process/activity connected to the proceeds of crime is a continuing offence.

    The above Explanation was inserted on the basis of an observation made by Financial Task Action Force (FATF), that concealment, possession, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime were not criminalized earlier under Section 3 of the PMLA.
     
  3. Proviso to Section 17(1) and 18(1) omitted:
    Omitting the above proviso now gives the authorized officer under PMLA the authority to enter any property for purpose of conducting search and seizure, and the search of any person, even in the absence of the reporting of a scheduled offence to a Magistrate or any other competent authority in this regard.

     Where prior to the amendment it was provided, that no search ( also inc. persons) shall be conducted unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which sets out the Procedure for Investigation) or a complaint has been duly filed by a person, authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in the Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be.
     
  4. Amendment to Section 44 of the PMLA:
    Section 44 of the PMLA encompasses the provisions for offences which can be tried by Special Courts. A proviso has been inserted to Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA which talks about submitting of a ‘Closure Report' upon conclusion of investigation. It states that if no offence of money laundering can be determined after investigation, the authority shall submit a ‘Closure Report' before the Special Court. It insists on closing of cases where investigation was completed and no offence was found.

    An Explanation has been inserted to Section 44 (1) (d) of PMLA which gives the Special Court an exclusive jurisdiction regarding scheduled offences. The Explanation mentions that the trial conducted by the Special Court for scheduled offences shall be distinct from any other trial being conducted for the same scheduled offence. It shall not be considered as a joint trial. The Explanation further adds that Complaint shall include any subsequent complaint that arises as a result of further investigation against any accused person. It shall be applicable for all persons, whether or not such person was included in the original complaint.
     
  5. Explanation to Section 45 (2) of PMLA:
    This Explanation injected in section 45 clarifies that the offence of money laundering is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Accordingly, an authorized officer can arrest the accused without a warrant. Which in common parlance means that a person arrested is not entitled to bail as a matter of right, and the bail becomes a matter of discretion for the court and if the offence provides for punishment which more than 3 years, then bail can only be granted after hearing the prosecutor and only after the court comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.


The above amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 brought in by the Finance Act, 2019 brings the much needed clarity on various unaddressed aspects of money laundering. It can be said that these amendments now confer the authorities with better command, regarding investigation, seizure, search, confiscation, closure and adjudication.                                        

However, the crucial question for consideration would be whether these amendments will be applicable retrospectively?   As the amendments has been made by virtue of Finance Act, 2019 and it is not clear whether they will have an retrospective or prospective operation, Considering it more of a clarificatory in nature, as it is just explaining what has been already opined in the definition of "proceeds of crime", therefore, in my opinion, it is likely to have an retrospective effect. It is also believed that courts in future can throw some light on the same by way of litigation that may arise during the trials of such matters.

Written By: Amrit Rajan Jhangiani

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Amrit Rajan Jhangiani
Member since May 1, 2020
Location: NEW DELHI
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top