Read Time: 06 minutes

In a batch of petitions challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Thursday submitted that PMLA deals with offences which are highly sophisticated, not merely committed at the heat of the moment.

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar was hearing a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Mehta submitted, "PMLA offences are never committed at the heat of the moment, the offences utilize the most advanced technology and they ensure that the authorities don't find out - and delete the entire trail within minutes if authorities get to know. Unlike IPC (Indian Penal Code) offences, majority of which are committed and then investigated, money laundering is always a continuing offence."

In addition to this, referring to the issue of not filing of FIRs in PMLA cases, Mehta said, "For seizures, investigation, etc we shall have material, but there can't be an FIR as it defeats the object. If you touch him, record reasons and tell, but before that, there is nothing to be complied with."

Mehta further submitted that a police officer under CrPC has territorial jurisdiction to conduct searches, while in case of ED, there is no jurisdiction and it also has to comply with international obligations.

Earlier, Mehta referring to money laundering and the recommendations made by the Finance Action Task Force (FATF) and requirement of the provision of money laundering, had argued before the top court that Dawood used to invest crores in pirated CDs and generated proceeds of crime but that he was still merely accused of piracy.

Mehta had argued that the petitioners' contention that the legislation is not Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) compliant, is faulty. He said that it must be constitutionally compliant and need not be CrPC compliant.

In addition to this, Mehta further argued that PMLA is a complete code whereas, CrPC is a generic law and under CrPC police officers need not record reasons and under PMLA they'll have to give reasons.

Referring to the rules, Mehta submitted that after conviction under money laundering the property and money attached may be returned to the claimant who suffered loss, and that by way of this rule Rs. 18,000 crores have been returned to the banks attached from the absconding businessmen.

Mehta further argued that FATF (Financial Action Task Force) conducts audits, it's 2012 normal evaluation report said that India's money laundering definition isn't consistent with Vienna Convention and the Government complied, as to be compliant, would be necessary for India's international stability.

In addition to this, Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy arguing for the petitioner had submitted that with conviction numbers in PMLA cases being low, appeals by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should have been higher, however, that is not the case. She cited that in 2010 and 2011, infact, there were no appeals by the ED.

Cause Title: Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. vs Union of India & Other