In the matter between Y Balaji VS karthik desari and Anr solicitor general of India Tushar Mehta said that the provisions of the Prevention of money laundering act 2002 are in accordance with the global standards that are set by the financial action task force and are a part of the intergovernmental response to organized crimes.
Justice Krishna Murari and V Rama Subramanian were hearing a bunch of appeals against an order of the Madras High Court which ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-jobs scam wherein a Tamil Nadu minister among others is accused of accepting bribes from job aspirants in exchange for appointment to the state transport corporation back in the year 2011 two 2015
Advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary needs a reconsideration or relook.
Advocate said that the central agency’s modus operandi was not only against justice but also violative of the principles of federalism.
On the other hand, the solicitor highlighted the importance of the Prevention of money laundering act as part of the global response to organized crimes across geopolitical borders.
In rejoinder, the solicitor general addressed a number of contentions raised by the opposite side including the argument that once an accused is discharged for a predicate offence the enforcement directorate has no jurisdiction to investigate
The solicitor general also stated that the involvement in any one or more of the following activities or processes connected with the crime such as concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property would be an offense of money laundering under the PMLA Act.
The solicitor general explained that if a person is accused in a corruption case based on the corruption case the enforcement directorate lodges a case information report and its jurisdiction is to find out where the money goes even if such a person is in possession he would be guilty of money laundering and stated that it is not necessary for him to launder the money in conventional sense.
one of the main arguments by the opposing side was that the jurisdictional facts which are necessary for the directorate to begin an investigation are the Commission of offense along with generating proceeds of crime.
It was argued that the existence of an identified property or ill-gotten gains in the hands of the accused is an essential requirement for an offense under money laundering
To which the solicitor general responded by Saying the moment of predicate agency whether it is a state agency or central Bureau of Investigation registers an FIR falling within the predicate offense list and there the jurisdiction of the enforcement directorate begins.
This solicitor general pointed out that the court has read only one condition which is that the enforcement directorates investigation will stop if the accused is acquitted in the scheduled offense however the act provides the directorate to share information relating to any proceeds of crime that are recovered during a raid from an accused with another agency where the predicate offenses have gone.
The Prevention of money laundering act is a complete code taking into view all scenarios said the solicitor.