New Delhi, Aug 22 : The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to file a petition seeking an appeal of its decision upholding the Enforcement Directorate’s power in relation with the attachment of property that is involved in money laundering, as well as arrest and search and seizure in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.When counsel raised the issue before the bench of Chief Justice N.V.Ramana, the bench declared: “Okay, we will take it up.”
Just 27, the highest court upheld the strict laws of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the definition of proceeds of criminal activity, the power of arrest, search and seizure and attachment of properties, and the two bail conditions.
A bench comprised of Justice A.M.Khanwilkar (now retired) and comprised of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T.Ravikumar stated: “The international bodies have been discussing the threat of money laundering on a a regular basis for some time.They strongly recommended the enactment of strict legislation to prevent of money laundering as well as dealing with the threat of it, including the prosecution of those who perpetrate it as well as to secure the confiscation of the proceeds of crime that have direct consequences for the financial system and the sovereignty and integrity of the countries.”
It was added that money laundering is among of the most obscene crimes that does not just affect the economic and social structure of the country however, it also tends to spread other heinous crimes such as terrorist acts, crimes connected to NDPS Act, etc.
The supreme court upheld the legality of Section 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) (taking possession of attached property),3 (definition of money laundering) 17 (search and seizure) 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse the burden of evidence) 45 (offences that are cognisable and non-bailable and twin conditions for the granting of bail by the court) 50 (statements sent to ED officials) and 44 (offences that can be ruled out by a an extra court).
However, the Supreme Court asked whether any of the modifications to the PMLA 2002 could not be passed by the Parliament through the use of an Finance Act, to be reviewed by a bigger bench.
ss/vd
