| SC compared Money Laundering to Terrorism In the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including the conditions for bail, search and seizure powers, and the burden of proof. The court recognized money laundering as a serious offence with a devastating impact on the economy, comparing it to terrorism due to its potential to destabilize national financial security. |
- A Delhi court granted bail to AAP leader and former Health Minister, citing that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighs the twin conditions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- Article 21 Superior to PMLA Conditions: The court emphasized that the relief provided under Article 21, ensures the right to life and personal liberty.
- The twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are specific requirements imposed by Section 45 for granting bail to an accused.
- Prima facie innocence: The court must be satisfied that the accused is prima facie not guilty of the offence they are charged with under the PMLA.
- Non-repetition of offence: The court must be convinced that the accused if released on bail, will not commit any further offences while out on bail.
- The court highlighted that liberty is a core constitutional value and that Article 21 applies regardless of the nature of the crime.
- The judgment underscores the importance of protecting individual liberty, even in cases involving serious economic offences.
Dig Deeper: Read about the Palermo Convention.
