Justice Ujjal Bhuyan bats for compensation in prolonged PMLA cases that end in acquittal

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on April 5 highlighted the growing concern over low conviction rates under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), while emphasising that accused persons cannot be kept behind bars for years without trial in money laundering cases..He said that courts in PMLA cases may have to consider compensation where prolonged custody ends in acquittal.Citing recent data from the Ministry of Finance, he said that although the number of PMLA cases surged from 209 in 2014 to over 5,200 by 2024, only 40 convictions had been secured by 2023. He warned that this trend combined with lengthy trials and the stringency of bail provisions could result in a situation where “the process becomes the punishment."“A person accused of money laundering under the PMLA cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when there is every likelihood, as per the statistics, of such person being finally acquitted in the trial,” Justice Bhuyan said..He was delivering the keynote address at the release of the second edition of the book Treatise on PMLA: Law and Practice by Advocate Akhilesh Dubey in Mumbai.The speech was delivered at World Trade Centre in Mumbai's Cuffe Parade. The event was attended by judges of the Bombay High Court, senior advocates, law students and legal professionals.Justice Bhuyan, who is part of the Bench hearing challenges to provisions of PMLA, confined his remarks to decided cases and statutory interpretation. He called for close judicial scrutiny of arrests under Section 19 of the Act and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement which laid down that ED officers must record written reasons to arrest and disclose them to the arrestee. “There is distinction between reasons to arrest and grounds for arrest. While the former refers to the formal parameters, the latter would require all such details in the hands of the authorised officer necessitating the arrest,” he said, adding that grounds of arrest are personal to the accused.He said courts have an inherent role in reviewing the legality of arrests. “The power of judicial review is inherent in Section 19 and is permissible both before and after criminal proceedings or prosecution complaints are filed.”.Justice Bhuyan also pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, ED which warned that strict bail provisions cannot justify prolonged incarceration of accused when trial does not proceed with reasonable speed.“Constitutional courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45 to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time,” Justice Bhuyan said..The judge concluded by observing that the law under PMLA was still evolving and that more judicial guidance would continue to shape its interpretation in the years to come.