Enforcement Without Exceptionalism: What Singapore's CDSA Reveals About India's PMLA Framework.
This article is written by Jasmine Pradhan, pursuing B.A.LL.B from Madhusudan Law University, Cuttack.
Money laundering is a serious threat to financial integrity, economic stability, and international governance, prompting states all over the world to adopt increasingly strict anti-money laundering (AML) policies. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is India’s main legislative tool to combat the laundering of illegal proceeds and provides the Enforcement Directorate with wide-ranging investigative powers. However, the Act has attracted a lot of judicial and intellectual criticism for institutionalising a regime of procedural uniqueness where the usual criminal jurisprudential safeguards are considerably weakened in the name of economic security.
The PMLA differs from ordinary criminal law systems in a number of ways, including reverse burdens of proof, restrictive bail conditions, broad attachment powers and restricted procedural openness. This paper critically examines whether such radical procedural changes are indeed necessary for effective AML enforcement.
Through a comparative analysis of Singapore’s Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA), the paper argues that strong anti-money laundering enforcement can coexist with stronger procedural safeguards and adherence to constitutional criminal law principles. The comparative study reveals that India’s enforcement architecture under the PMLA is a conscious legislative choice for aggressive compliance as opposed to an unavoidable regulatory requirement.
The study concludes that the current framework raises substantial questions about constitutional proportionality and advocates for calibrated reforms capable of balancing effective financial enforcement with procedural fairness and civil liberties.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this research article, submitted by students and/or other contributors in their personal capacity, are solely those of the author(s) and do not, in any manner whatsoever, reflect or represent the views, opinions, advice, or official position of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP (“PACTEDGE”). PACTEDGE makes no representations or warranties, whether express or implied, as to the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or currency of any facts, data, analysis, or legal propositions contained herein and shall not, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, be liable for any loss, injury, damage, or consequence arising directly or indirectly from any reliance placed upon this publication. The entire contents of this research article, including without limitation its text, structure, compilation, selection and arrangement of material, are and shall remain the exclusive intellectual property of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP, protected under applicable copyright and other intellectual property laws. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, adapted, published, communicated to the public, distributed, or otherwise made available in any form or by any means, whether electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, nor shared or reposted on any platform or medium, without the prior written consent of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP; any unauthorised use shall constitute infringement and may attract civil and/or criminal consequences, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP in law or equity.
Comments