ANOOP BARTARIA & ETC versus DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.

ANOOP BARTARIA & ETC versus DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.

The Court held that knowledge that funds are proceeds of crime is not a condition precedent for an offence under Section 3 PMLA; offences under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable per Section 45 and its Explanation; the prosecution complaint contained sufficient material particulars and prima facie allegations of direct involvement by the petitioners in money laundering, and therefore the High Court rightly refused to quash the proceedings and the petitions are to be dismissed and trial allowed to proceed.

Parties
Petitioner: Anoop Bartaria; Petitioner: M/s World Trade Park Ltd.; Respondent: Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (crl.) / Special Leave Petition Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 21.02.2019 (challenge to Dismissal of SB Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 704 and 757 of 2018)
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Quashing of Complaint, Cognizability and Bail Under PMLA, Knowledge/mens Rea Requirement for Money Laundering, Power to Arrest Under PMLA, Scope of Section 3 PMLA, Exercise of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.p.c.
Criminal Law Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Criminal Procedure Prevention of Corruption Quashing of Complaint Cognizability and Bail Under PMLA Knowledge/mens Rea Requirement for Money Laundering Power to Arrest Under PMLA +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anoop Bartaria

Petitioner

M/s World Trade Park Ltd.

Petitioner

Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (crl.) / Special Leave Petition Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 21.02.2019 (challenge to Dismissal of SB Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 704 and 757 of 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether knowledge that funds are proceeds of crime is a sine qua non for offence under Section 3 PMLA
  2. 2 Whether offences under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the prosecution complaint and ECIR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that knowledge that funds are proceeds of crime is not a condition precedent for an offence under Section 3 PMLA; offences under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable per Section 45 and its Explanation; the prosecution complaint contained sufficient material particulars and prima facie allegations of direct involvement by the petitioners in money laundering, and therefore the High Court rightly refused to quash the proceedings and the petitions are to be dismissed and trial allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions dismissed
  • Interim relief granted earlier vacated forthwith