When the Supreme Court struck down the ED, what authority under the money laundering statute was diminished?

 When the Supreme Court struck down the ED, what authority under the money laundering statute was diminished?

When the Supreme Court struck down the ED, what authority under the money laundering statute was diminished?

The Supreme Court rendered a decision dismissing an ED complaint pertaining to the PMLA. The court made significant rulings on money laundering and tax evasion in its ruling.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is no longer permitted to file a money laundering case in the event of suspected tax evasion, according to the Supreme Court. In actuality, a PMLA complaint brought forward by the ED was heard on November 29. In the process, the court declared that a criminal conspiracy would only be classified as a scheduled crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLLA, 2002) if it is included on the PMLA schedule. A case for money laundering cannot be started in any other way.

An offense that is included in the statute's schedule is referred to as a scheduled offense. This demonstrates that this offense is covered by certain legal laws.

A bench consisting of Justices A S Oka and Pankaj Mithal rendered a decision rejecting an ED case pertaining to the PMLA. The Court ruled that a crime covered by Part A of the Schedule under Section 120B of the IPC will only be classified as a scheduled offense if it is committed in connection with the commission of an offense covered by Parts A, B, or C of the PMLA.

What is the issue in its entirety?

As to the Live Law report, on March 7, 2022, ED filed a charge against Madhukar Angoor, the former Vice Chancellor of Alliance University. On this, controversy had already begun. The petitioner was accused by ED under PMLA sections 44 and 45. In this, Section 4 of the PMLA was used to penalize the violations under Section 3 as well as Sections 8(5) and 70.

The claims state that the former Alliance University venture capitalist, who served from 2014 to 2016, assisted in concealing the assets that were purportedly sold during his time there. Among the properties listed were those owned by Alliance University. It was also said that he assisted Accused No. 1. According to the allegations, the former VC concealed the money taken out of the institution by using personal bank accounts.

Karnataka High Court heard the matter before. Here, the High Court ruled that aiding in the money laundering process constituted a money laundering crime in and of itself.

The appellant then made contact with the Supreme Court. On behalf of the appellant, senior attorney Meenakshi Arora contended that her client's name was absent from both the FIR and the following charge sheet. In a complaint filed in accordance with PMLA Sections 44 and 45, the petitioner was accused for the first time.

The Additional Solicitor General countered by claiming that PMLA is a separate code. In this case, someone whose name is not included in the FIR may also be charged.

The PMLA suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court in this instance.