PMLA cant be invoked for non scheduled offence

SC verdict on PMLA on non scheduled Offences-

The Supreme Court has rejected the review petitions filed against its previous judgment, which ruled that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be initiated by invoking Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the alleged criminal conspiracy was not linked to a scheduled offence. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the review petitions filed by the Directorate of Enforcement and Alliance University, seeking a review of the judgment delivered.

Also Read- What are scheduled offences in PMLA?

In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will be considered a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only if the alleged conspiracy is aimed at committing an offence explicitly listed in the schedule of the PMLA.

The court stated, “An offence punishable under section 120-B will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence specifically included in the schedule to the Act.”

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal. The case pertained to an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment that declined to quash proceedings in a case before the Special Judge, Bangalore.

The case involved allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The FIR in the underlying offence was registered under Sections 143, 406, 407, 408, 409, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court emphasized that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could only be invoked concerning the “proceeds of crime,” and clarified the limitations on invoking Section 120-B of the IPC in such cases.

In the current case, a complaint lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 7, 2022, against the former Vice-Chancellor of Alliance University has sparked controversy.

The ED has accused the petitioner under sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), citing offences delineated under section 3 in conjunction with sections 8(5) and 70, which are punishable under section 4 of the PMLA.

The allegations suggest that during her tenure as Vice-Chancellor of Alliance University from 2014 to 2016, the appellant colluded with Madhukar Angur (Accused no.1) to execute a sham and nominal sale deed without any consideration, involving properties owned by Alliance University.

It was further claimed that she aided Accused No. 1 in utilizing her bank accounts to conceal money diverted from the university. Taking cognizance of these allegations, the Special Judge proceeded with the case.