INTRODUCTION
Money laundering refers to the process of concealing money obtained through illicit means such as tax evasion, smuggling etc. The attempt is to make illegally obtained money appear legal. There are three stages under money laundering – Placement, Layering and Integration. Under placement, the money is directly introduced into the economy. Second, under layering, the illegally obtained money is invested in multiple sectors to leave a trail of transactions and the source of the money is lost. Under integration, the money is brought into the economy as a legitimate source of income through investment in cash intensive sectors. In this manner, the money is “integrated’ into the system and the source of the money is lost. In India, the legislation to tackle money laundering is the PMLA. The legislation was enacted as a result of India’s commitment to honour the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Financial Action Task Force(FATF) was established at the international level to monitor money laundering, The PMLA has stringent provisions relating to the grant of bail which has come under the scanner for allegedly trying to alter the judicial principles in India.
BAIL CONDITIONS UNDER PMLA
In India, the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” has been well established in the Indian criminal jurisprudence. This principle was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Balchand (1977). However, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 nearly makes it impossible to get bail. It states that no person accused of an offence under the act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and if the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application but the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence on bail. The proviso states that the accused could be released if the person is below sixteen years, a woman, sick or infirm, accused either on his or with others for a sum of less than one crore rupees. Thus, it could be seen that the burden of proof has been shifted on the accused to prove that he is not guilty rather than on the prosecution. The intervention by the Public Prosecutor might create several hurdles for the accused to be granted bail and the court is being put in a position to determine whether there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence’ even before the actual trial has commenced.
2018 AMENDMENT TO THE PMLA
In the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court had struck down Section 45(1) of the PML Act 2002 in so far as it relates to the two conditions for bail for offences punishable with more than three years of imprisonment under Part A of the act as it is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was also held that classification based on duration of sentence or imprisonment had no rational nexus or relation with the PMLA. The application of Section 45(1) would lead to anomalous results wherein the same offender charged in different cases would end up getting different results on his bail application depending on whether Section 45(1) is applied or not.
Post the Nikesh Shah judgment, the Parliament amended Section 45 of PMLA to remove the prior defects and made it more stringent. Now, the twin conditions of bail have to be met each person accused of any offence under the act. Prior to the amendment, this requirement was only for those who were accused of an offence under Part A of the schedule with more than three years of imprisonment.
The constitutionality of Section 45 was once again challenged in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India(2022). The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 45, placing reliance on the purpose and objects of the law and India’s commitment to various international bodies and agreements. It further added that money laundering is a serious crime and there is a compelling state interest in tackling such crime. It is important to note that while “commitment to International bodies” was used as an argument by the Union and it was also used in the reasoning by the court to uphold Section 45, the FATF has itself stated that complying with its obligations should not contravene International Human Rights law. Other FATF members such as the USA and UK also do not have such stringent provisions for the grant of bail in their Anti Money Laundering laws.
RECENT JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
In the recent past, the Supreme Court has come up with various progressive judgments with regard to the grant of bail under the Section 45 of PML Act 2002. In the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Supreme Court held that while an offence under PMLA is serious, the right to a speedy trial cannot be done away it. If the trial has been delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused, it raises presumption of the fairness of prolonged incarceration. The appellant had spent more than 17 months in prison without the commencement of trail. Next, in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India(2024) case, the Supreme Court held that liberty of an individual is always the rule while deprivation of it is an exception. Bail is the norm even for offences under the PMLA. Recently, the court granted bail to AAP leader Satyendar Jain who was arrested under the PMLA 2002. While delivering the verdict, the court held that relief granted under Article 21 of the Constitution will supersede the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA 2002.
CONCLUSION
The PMLA 2002 is the primary legislation against money laundering in India. While it is true that money laundering is a serious offence, the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the act would be a gross infringement of Article 21 and puts the burden of proof on the accused. It also reverses the well-established judicial principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
Contributed By : Kritavirya Choudhary (Intern)