[4] On 24 November 2017, in a ruling in favour of citizens' liberty, the Supreme Court has set aside a clause in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which made it virtually impossible for a person convicted to more than three years in jail to get bail if the public prosecutor opposed it.
And should the public prosecutor choose to oppose bail, the court has to be convinced that the accused was not guilty of the crime and additionally that he/she was not likely to commit any offence while out on bail- a tall order by any count.)
[11] The Adjudicating Authority shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of PMLA.
[13] A person, who is accused of having committed the offence of money laundering, has to prove that alleged proceeds of crime are in fact lawful property.
FIU-IND is an independent body reporting directly to the Economic Intelligence Council (EIC) Archived 1 November 2015 at the Wayback Machine headed by the Finance Minister.
Justice Lokur's critique underscores the broader debate about the balance between national security interests and individual rights, highlighting the need for judicious scrutiny when interpreting laws that could impinge upon constitutional freedoms.
[28][29] On 22 August 2022, Supreme Court accepted a petition to review its 27 July 2022 judgement which upheld core amendments made to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
[30] On 25 August 2022, Supreme Court said that two provisions, not providing a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report to the accused, and reversal of the presumption of innocence, need reconsideration.
[31] In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials are not equivalent to police officers and hence, cannot make arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).