PMLA - A Law Against the Accused as well as Victim?
THE Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act would show that the primary object for which the Act came into existence was for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug crimes committed by global criminals/terrorists, involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
But nowadays, it is being used against persons accused in various cases which can be tried under the IPC.
The Madras High Court in a recent case observed, "The more and more the Act is used for tackling normal offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, committed within the territories of India, the result would be disastrous to the victims of crime."
The Court further observed,
"The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, not only seeks to punish the offenders, but also seeks to punish the victims of such offences. Take for instance a case, where an offence of kidnapping for ransom punishable under Section 364-A takes place. If the amount involved is more than rupees 30 lakhs, it is a scheduled offence under this Special enactment. Therefore, if the accused is apprehended and charged under this Act and the money is also recovered, then the person who paid the ransom to the accused and who happens to be the victim of the crime, will lose his money by virtue of Section 8(6) and Section 9. He would rather prefer to turn hostile in the criminal case by reaching an agreement with the accused so that the attachment order gets lifted under Section 8(5) enabling him to take away his money. In other words, Section 8(6) and Section 9, which seeks to punish the victims of crime along with the accused, appear to be a disincentive for the victims. The same analogy holds good even for offences of robbery and dacoity punishable under Sections 392 to 402, which are included in Paragraph 1 of Part B of the schedule to the Act. A person, who is robbed or a person on whom dacoity is committed, has to lose his property to the Central Government by virtue of Section 8(6) and Section 9 of the Act, if the stand taken by the respondents is accepted. For the victims of crime, there would virtually be no difference between the accused and the Central Government, as in any case, they would have to lose their property, to either of the two."
We bring you this important case today.
Please see Breaking News