New Delhi, Aug 25 : The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to review its July 27 PMLA decision, which upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s authority in relation with the attachment of property that is involved in money laundering, as well as arrest and search, as well as seizure in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V.Ramana, said there were two principal concerns — not providing of ECIR to those accused during the period of arrest, and the rejection of the presumption of innocence as it issued a notice to the Central government regarding the review petition submitted by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.
Senior attorneys Kapil Sibal and A.M.Singhvi submitted that the entire ruling must be taken into consideration.However, the supreme court clarified two issues that will be examined during the review.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that review is not like a writ request and that all the issues cannot be reviewed.
The court of appeals said there was no need for an lengthy hearings and the court is of the opinion that there are two elements that must be considered in the ruling to be re-examined.”We are in total support of the fight against the use of illegal money.The country cannot afford to commit such crimes because the goal is good,” it said.
The bench, comprised of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T.Ravikumar said that the judges are of two elements that need an re-look in the decision.
Opposing the review Mehta stated that there must be an error that is evident on records for review and this isn’t an individual act, rather it is in accordance with India’s international obligations.
Sibal representing Karti Chidambaram, stated that the court’s decision is that money laundering is a continuous crime, and therefore the proceeds of 1999 could be considered to be an offence, even if it wasn’t an offence that was scheduled in 1999.He said that the question is whether an individual can be convicted now on the grounds of hiding the proceeds of criminal activity.
The bench reaffirmed that it has already identified two issues, pertaining to ECIR and the negation of the presumption of innocence.Sibal asked the bench to reconsider the whole decision but the bench was unmoved by the evidence of Sibal and said it was restricting the review based on two reasons.
In an order posted later in the evening, highest court wrote: “Having heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner of the petitioner and also the learned Solicitor General who appeared for the benefit of the respondent on the face of it we’re of the opinion that at least two of the issues that are raised in the petition are worthy of examination.”
After hearing the submissions after hearing submissions, the bench issued notice on the petitions for review and extended its decision to grant temporary protection to the petitioner for a period of four weeks.
The 27th of July, the highest court affirmed the strict requirements of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the definition of proceeds of crime, 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 Maheshwari and Ravikumar and Ravikumar, had stated: “The international bodies have been discussing the threat of money laundering on a a regular basis for a long time.They strongly recommended the enactment of strict laws to stop the spread 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 criminal acts that have direct consequences for the financial systems , the integrity and sovereignty of the nations.”
It also stated that money laundering is among of the most obscene crimes that does not just affect the economic and social structure of the country but also has the potential to encourage other crimes of a criminal nature such as terrorists, offenses that are related to NDPS Act, etc.
The Supreme Court had affirmed 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 obligation of evidence) 45 (offences that are cognisable and non-bailable and two conditions for the granting of bail by the court) 50 (statements sent to ED officials) and 44 (offences which can be triable by a the special court).
However, the highest court left open the question of whether some of the changes to the PMLA 2002 could be passed by the Parliament through the use of the Finance Act, to be reviewed by a bigger bench.
ss/vd
