Read Time: 07 minutes

Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi has argued in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) challenge that the "uniqueness of the PMLA is the entire heart and soul of money laundering" and and that one "cannot presume the heart and soul."

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar was hearing a batch of petitions filed challenging the provisions of PMLA.

Singhvi arguing for the petitioners submitted that "In terms of the PMLA - use, projecting, and claiming it to be untainted, are three heads, without your Lordships finding these three heads, it would be stretching of an offence to bring money laundering."

However, Justice CT Ravi Kumar raised the issue that if there is some money that is proceeds of crime and he uses it, then projecting and claiming will be one part. To which Singh agreed stating that in that case all will be one.

Singhvi over the issue of attachment of property argued through an example stating, "If a property is of Rs. 200 crores and the offence is of Rs. 10 lakhs they will attach the property to that value but effectively nobody will touch that property."

In addition to attachment, Singhvi further argued over the issue of possession of property stating that the issue of taking possession without any adjudication.

"We are not talking about attachment right now, we are talking about possession without adjudication, it's at the threshold," Singhvi added.

Further over days of possession Singhvi submitted that it amounts to takeover of valuable property right with one statutory confirmation. There is no temporal limit to it, the possession may continue till 365 days even if the chargesheet is filed earlier, and may continue beyond 365 days if it is not filed.

Singhvi contended that, "You are attaching property for a moment let's not go into that, but you are taking possession also, what will be more draconian than this?"

Singhvi submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has enough safeguards to protect the property. The possession of the property exceeds the limits of proportionality.

In response to this Justice Maheshwari asked if these are proceeds of crime why they would be allowed to be used at all. To which Singhvi contended that, "Yes, but what is the purpose of keeping it idle for 3 years. Can't it be tailored?"

Over the issue of confiscation of property after conviction, the bench raised the issue that there is inbuilt mention in Section 8 that until the trial is over, there is no confiscation and without possession, the property cannot be confiscated.

In response to this, Singhvi submitted that the possession of the property may be taken into rarest of the rare cases with proper reasoning for the same.

Earlier, when the top court questioned Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal on how many judicial hours had been invested in the case involving the challenge to various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) Sibal replied saying,

"This is a 'be-lagaam ghoda' (unbridled horse), there is no restraint...This case should thus be dealt with as soon as possible."

On a lighter note, Sibal added that this case which is both, a lawyers' paradise as well as a bureaucrats' paradise.

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