New Delhi (The Hawk): On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone who gives money with the intention of receiving a bribe will be knowingly participating in an activity related to the proceeds of crime.
A verdict rendered by the Madras High Court in March 2021, which dismissed the charges brought against Padmanabhan Kishore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was overturned by a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The high court's decision was challenged in a petition to the Supreme Court by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The supreme court stated that it is true that the money would remain uncontaminated as long as it is in the hands of a bribe sender and does not become impressed with the necessary intent and is not actually handed over as a bribe.
It was stated that if the money was given without this intention, it would only constitute a mere entrustment, and if the public official then used it for their own purposes, it would be considered a form of misappropriation rather than a bribe.
"Therefore, the most important factor is the necessary intent to hand over the money as a bribe, which is typically required to exist beforehand or prior to the moment the money is handed over. Therefore, before the money is given out, the necessary intent would always be in the forefront "It looked.
The bench went on to say that the person in question would undoubtedly be involved in the process or activity related to "proceeds of crime," including, among other things, the aspects of possession or acquisition thereof, if such intent had been entertained before the money was actually handed over.
"Such a person will be aiding or will be knowingly a party to an action associated with the proceeds of crime by donating money with the intent to give bribe. The money would not take on the characteristics of being the profits of crime without such active involvement on the side of the individual in question. Because of this, the applicable language from Section 3 of the PML Act are broad enough to cover the role that such a person plays "It read.
According to the supreme court, it is extremely obvious that the respondent was at least presumptively involved in the activity related to the proceeds of crime. It stated: "The high court's conclusion that the respondent cannot be held accountable for the offence under the PML Act is thus entirely false.
An IRS official who was a defendant in the case in 2011 lost Rs 50 lakh to the CBI. Investigation revealed that Kishore sent the money to the officer while the officer was still processing Kishore's income tax file.
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act of 1988 were used to register the case. The Enforcement Directorate afterwards filed a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act against the accused, including the respondent.
The main argument put forth on behalf of the respondent was that the money in question could not be considered tainted money while it was in the respondent's possession; it only acquired this character after it was received by the public servant. As a result, the respondent could not be considered associated with the proceeds of crime and could not be prosecuted under the PML Act's provisions. The high court agreed with this argument and dismissed the respondent's case under the PML Act.
The top court pointed out that the issue at hand does not concern Kishore's participation in the offence punishable by the PC Act; rather, it concerns whether he can be prosecuted under the terms of the PML Act.
The top court accepted the ED's appeal and stated: "The observations we made regarding the respondent's involvement serve as a preliminary indicator of whether or not the prosecution's allegations, if true at this point, would constitute an offence. It goes without saying that, based on the facts, the case will be evaluated solely on its merits at the proper level (s)... As a result, the respondent will continue to be listed and dealt with in line with the law in the Enforcement Directorate-registered E.C.I.R."
(Inputs from Agencies)
