‘Receipt Of Bribe Is An Act Of Money Laundering’ :

In a significant development increasing the jurisdictional remit of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Supreme Court has on Monday clarified that criminal activity and the generation of the proceeds of crime are like ‘Siamese twins’ in the case of an offence of corruption and the acquisition of the proceeds of crime in such cases would itself tantamount to money laundering. The top court held:

“It is true that there are some offences, which, though scheduled offences, may or may not generate proceeds of crime. For instance, the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 is a scheduled offence. Unless it is a murder for gain or murder by a hired assassin, the same may or may not generate proceeds of crime. It is in respect of such types of offences that one may possibly argue that the mere commission of the crime is not sufficient but the generation of proceeds of crime is necessary. In the case of an offence of corruption, the criminal activity and the generation of the proceeds of crime are like Siamese twins. Therefore, even if an intangible property is derived as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, it becomes proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u)…

Wherever there are allegations of corruption, the acquisition of proceeds of crime itself is tantamount to money laundering.”

This observation was made by a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian , while allowing a batch of appeals against an order of the Madras High Court directing a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-jobs scam, in which the Tamil Nadu minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, has been accused of accepting bribes from job aspirants in exchange of appointments to the state transport corporation between 2011 and 2015. The top court also set aside a direction of the high court staying the proceedings in the money laundering case lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement.