By Online Desk
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which relate to the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Live Law reports.
The court upheld the constitutionality of the powers of ED relating to arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the ED.
The court rejected the petitoners’ argument that the offence of money laundering is attracted only if the property is projected as an untained property.
According to Bar and Bench, the judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar on a batch of 241 petitions challenging the validity of the law.
The petitioners had questioned various aspects of the law including the wide powers given to ED for search, seizure and attachment, the reverse burden cast on accused to prove innocence, the admissibility of statements made to ED as evidence, the stringent conditions for grant of bail and the impact of predicate offence and its outcome, on PMLA case.
The Central government had argued that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 is a standalone offence so long as there is a predicate offence irrespective of whether there is acquittal or conviction in such predicate offence.
Pertinently it was also argued by the government that money laundering under Section 3 is a continuing offence, irrespective of time at which the predicate offence is included in the Schedule.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which relate to the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Live Law reports.
The court upheld the constitutionality of the powers of ED relating to arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the ED.
The court rejected the petitoners’ argument that the offence of money laundering is attracted only if the property is projected as an untained property.
According to Bar and Bench, the judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar on a batch of 241 petitions challenging the validity of the law.
The petitioners had questioned various aspects of the law including the wide powers given to ED for search, seizure and attachment, the reverse burden cast on accused to prove innocence, the admissibility of statements made to ED as evidence, the stringent conditions for grant of bail and the impact of predicate offence and its outcome, on PMLA case.
The Central government had argued that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 is a standalone offence so long as there is a predicate offence irrespective of whether there is acquittal or conviction in such predicate offence.
Pertinently it was also argued by the government that money laundering under Section 3 is a continuing offence, irrespective of time at which the predicate offence is included in the Schedule.
