Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Offence of money laundering – Knowledge of dealing with the proceeds of crime, if sine qua non for– Held: No – Knowledge of the accused that he was dealing with proceeds of crime is not a condition precedent or sine qua non required to be shown by the prosecution for lodging the complaint under the Act – Apart from having knowledge, if a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or is actually involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is also guilty of the offence of money laundering – In the present case, serious allegations of money laundering are alleged against both the petitioners in the prosecution complaint – Sufficient material particulars have been narrated in the complaint to substantiate the said allegations, prima facie showing the direct involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences of money laundering as defined in s.3, which require a trial to be conducted– Further, power to quash a complaint should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare cases – High Court rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2), 13(1)(d).
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Subsection (1) substituted by the Act 20 of 2005 – Explanation to s.45 inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 – Held: From the substitution of sub-section (1) and insertion of the Explanation to s.45, and non-amendment in the short title of s.45, it is clear that all the offences under the PMLA were, are and shall be “cognizable and non-bailable offences” notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the CrPC – Accordingly, the officers authorized under the PMLA Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions u/s.19, PMLA which deals with power to arrest and subject to the conditions enshrined u/s.45 – In the instant case, the prosecution complaint was lodged by the authorized officer – Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 – Held: Money laundering poses a serious threat to the financial system of the countries and to their integrity and sovereignty – Hence, any lenient view in dealing with such offences would be a travesty of justice. State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and Another (2018) 11 SCC 1 : [2017] 12 SCR 358; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 12 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.