Issues with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling are explained.

According to section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Authority or Court shall presume that any proceeds of crime are utilised in money-laundering if a person is charged with the crime, unless the accused proves otherwise.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the PMLA’s double bail requirements.

According to the SC, it is not required to give an accused person a copy of the ECIR in every circumstance.
According to the 1973 Code, an ECIR cannot be compared to a FIR.

On burden of proof on accused

According to section 24 of the PMLA, the Authority or Court shall presume that any proceeds of crime are utilised in money-laundering if a person is charged with the crime, unless the accused proves otherwise. The accused, not ED personnel, is responsible for demonstrating his innocence or the integrity of the money or property attached.

Not required on the accused’s copy of the ECIR

According to the SC, it is not required to give an accused person a copy of the ECIR in every circumstance. If the ED discloses the reasons for the arrest at the time of the arrest, it is sufficient. However, the Special Court has the option to review the pertinent data provided by the authorised ED representative when the detained person is presented to it in order to determine whether or not the individual’s continuing detention in relation to the money-laundering offence is necessary.

According to the 1973 Code, an ECIR cannot be compared to a FIR.

The ECIR is an internal document of the ED, and the fact that no FIR has been filed in connection with a scheduled offence does not prevent the authorities mentioned in Section 48 from starting an inquiry or investigation and taking “civil action” or “provisional attachment” of property that is the proceeds of crime.

When it comes to money laundering, the SC defines the crime in a broad and inclusive manner, stating that Section 3 of the 2002 Act “has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy.”

When attaching property The 2002 Act’s Section 5 is legitimate under the constitution. It includes a mechanism for balancing the interests of the person and ensuring that the proceeds of crime are still available to be handled in accordance with the 2002 Act’s guidelines. The procedural protections that we have outlined above are efficient safeguards for the interests of the concerned individual.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of PMLA’s twin conditions for obtaining bail, which are strict bail conditions. According to the Supreme Court, bail requirements “are reasonable, have a direct relationship to the goals and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act, and do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.”

The procedure envisioned by Section 50 of the 2002 Act is in the nature of an inquiry into the proceeds of crime and is not a “investigation” in the legal sense of the word for bringing charges; 538 and the Authorities under the 2002 Act (referred to in Section 48), are not police officers in the traditional sense. (a) Neither Article 20(3) nor Article 21 of the Indian Constitution apply to the statements that the Authorities recorded in accordance with the 2002 Act.