Supreme Court Declares Money Laundering a Serious Crime, Rejects Bail in Key Case
Supreme Court Declares Money Laundering a Serious Crime, Rejects Bail in Key Case
Supreme Court Declares Money Laundering a Serious Crime: The Supreme Court has ruled that money laundering is a grave threat to the country’s financial system, sovereignty, and integrity. Rejecting the bail of an accused, the apex court emphasized the strict provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
‘Money laundering is a serious crime’, Supreme Court said in which a person ignores national interest for his benefit. In one of its important decisions, the Supreme Court has described money laundering as a threat to the country’s financial system and sovereignty and integrity and said that it is not an ordinary crime. It is a serious crime.
Money laundering is a serious crime – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that the purpose of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is to stop money laundering, which is a threat to the country’s financial system. Money laundering is a serious crime, in which a person ignores the interest of the nation and society to increase his profit. This crime cannot be called a crime of a petty nature in any way.
The apex court said that this law has been made to deal with money laundering activities. It includes money laundering activities that have an international impact on the financial system, which also affects the sovereignty and integrity of countries. Money laundering has been considered a serious form of crime all over the world. The criminal involved in this is considered to be of a different class from the common criminal.
The Supreme Court said this on the bail petition
The Supreme Court said that the courts cannot be justified in granting bail summarily without considering the gravity of the crime of the criminal involved in the activity of money laundering and the stringent provisions of Section 45 of PMLA. It is mandatory to consider the dual conditions prescribed in the Money Laundering Prevention Act while deciding on the bail petitions of the accused persons.
According to the dual conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, the prosecutor should be allowed to oppose the bail petition. Along with this, the court should ensure that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the accused is not guilty of the crime and will not commit any crime on bail.
With these comments, the bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale has rejected the Patna High Court’s order granting bail to Kanhaiya Prasad, accused of money laundering. The court has ordered Kanhaiya Prasad to surrender within a week.
The case is related to the accused Kanhaiya Prasad
Also, the case has been sent back to the High Court for fresh consideration. It has also been said that the case should be handed over to any other bench for consideration other than the bench which had given the earlier verdict. The Supreme Court gave this order on Thursday while accepting the ED’s appeal filed against the order of the Patna High Court.
On May 6, 2024, the Patna High Court accepted Kanhaiya Prasad’s petition and granted him bail in the money laundering case. The current case is related to illegal mining and illegal sale of sand by M/s Board Sun Commodities Private Limited and its directors. In this case, about 20 cases have been registered under IPC, PMLA, and other laws. In this, the government suffered a revenue loss of about Rs 161 crore.
According to the ED, the proceeds of the crime were used to buy property and get renovation work done in the authorized property of the family trust. In this case, the ED filed a complaint (chargesheet) against the accused in the court on 10 November 2023 and the PMLA court took cognizance of it on the same day. The Patna High Court then granted bail to the accused, against which the ED came to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Declares Money Laundering a Serious Crime: The Supreme Court said this in the judgment while canceling the order of the High Court
The Supreme Court, while canceling the order of the High Court, said in the judgment that the High Court had granted bail in a very casual manner. The provisions of Section 45 have not been considered. While granting bail to the accused, the High Court did not record in the order that there is a rational basis for the accused not being guilty of the crime and there is no possibility of him committing a crime during bail. The court said that due to non-compliance with these necessary conditions of Section 45, the order of the High Court is not worth sustaining.
Pingback: NIA Grills BHU Student for 4 Hours in Maoist Probe - ANN