 Good evening, friends, and after a long time, we had been requested in Justice Manmohan Singh, a former judge from Delhi High Court, and who's also been the former chairman of IPAP and PMLA. To share his insights, because we had been receiving requests from large number of viewers that we should have the insights from a person who's as resourceful as Justice Manmohan Singh. If one goes through even the judgments rendered by Justice Manmohan Singh, one will find they are lucid and simple, illustrative, which one can understand. Now we have been reading day in and day out of late regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. If a resourceful person like Justice Manmohan Singh can explain things which are simplified and which are relevant to understand not only for a lawyer, but other common persons also, because if we read the newspaper, social media, we find that there are a large number of cases being registered. But if the understanding of this subject could be explicitly explained, it clears the doubts which could go in the mind of a person. I will not take much time and we are thankful to Justice Manmohan Singh, who has been kind enough to accept her request. Thank you, sir, and over to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good evening to all. I've been asked to speak on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 for overall view in this act. I will explain to you, it's a very technical section and technical subject, but I will explain to you in a very simple language, so that the advocates and clients or the other person may understand the thing, what is the purpose behind for bringing this act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. So originally, it was noticed by the many countries of the world that in schedule of hands cases, when the matter is finished after the trial, and by entering at the time of entering the judgment, the accused person dispose of their properties. And the pursuit of crime, enjoyed by the accused parties, the prosecution may not be able to recover it. Therefore, it was noticed that since it is a time, basically we must bring some law, so that some pressure should be there because the Money Laundering Act is about tainted money or national security, and which is being used in drug mafia also. Therefore, overall view was taken in the many countries of the world. It was started from Australia, but later on, being the party in the association, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was discussed in the parliament for many years, and ultimately it was brought in July 2002. The language of the act for pursuit of crime and taking the action for money laundering was originally from the well-settled provision of Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure that is attachment before judgment. Originally it was used in a very light way, like in civil matters, that if somebody is involved in money laundering and the accused person has got the pursuit of crime in his hand, this property or the tainted money may be secure till the trial is over. If after the trial, after the final argument, if the person is involved, the money laundering amount will go to the state and property will also dispose, the money will go to the state authority. And at that time it was connected with the schedule offence, because they say that there is a schedule A, the schedule A of the offences that in case the person is violating the offences of the schedule of the act, that is CRPC, those cases can be registered on the basis of the complaint filed by any party or the charge sheet for the offences filed by the police. That was the intention behind that particular thing. But later on now, after the expiry of 21 years, the situation is entirely changed. The situation is now that it has become the very, it has become the very iconic law. The provisions are very strict provisions. Admitted position is that it is a special act there. But two or three things are very important which has been noticed by the media person. Very advocates or the judges that this act came in 2002, the 21 year ago, only less than 10 cases are decided finally after the trial and judgments are given against the accused parties. Just see that the in such a 21 years only about 10 cases are finally decided that how basically this long procedure is available at the site. Now, the conviction rate is less than 8% in the matter. Although in the schedule cases, the conviction rate is more than 40% schedule offences under the CRPC. So these are the tragic things now the agency claim now that it is a standalone act which has nothing to do with the schedule offences. We are a independent agency. If the schedule offences in the schedule offences, the accused is acquitted. However, being the special acts, the person can still be convicted under the prevention of Marine Laundering Act 2002. This debate is available almost in every court, high special court, high court as well as Supreme Court. You must have seen in the newspaper that almost in every second day the matters is being discussed that even at present without filing the FIR, without even complaining the person is involved in money laundering. The custody is taken. His house is raided. Money is recovered from his premises so as the jewelry. So because they say that forget about evidence act which is not maintainable which cannot be applied in Marine Laundering Act being a special act and since it is an independent act, therefore it has to be decided. Everything has to be decided under this act. So situation is that the sentence provisions are being discussed in every nook and corner. Despite of the mandatory provision of the act, despite of the guidelines, despite of the special provisions, the one side of the view is that the agency is taking the correct steps. The other side view is that the position is different because the person against whom FIR is pending, nothing was recovered from his premises but being the associate or being the associate or being a friend of the accused since it is a proceed of crime which has travelled from the accused to the normal person so normal person should also be arrested and his property should also be attached. So it is a very larger view is being discussed everywhere in the court itself and you will find that every 2-3 months new judgment come but in the month of July 2021 the constitution bench has decided by remembering the judgment on the prevention of money laundering act 2002 I will discuss that judgment later on and the critic view also regarding that judgment review in the said judgment is pending for certain portion of the judgment and as far as amendment or the provisions which have been added from time to time on the basis of the judgment given by the Supreme Court or the High Court in order to redundant the series of judgment is also pending before the Supreme Court. So let me tell you that first of all I will read the definition of proceed of crime which is at section 21 that is proceed of crime the proceed of crime means any properties derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activities relating to schedule of hands or the value of any property or where such property is taken or held outside the country then the property equivalent to the value held within the country or abroad so this proceed of crime meaning is that if somebody is involved directly or indirectly for the criminal activities naturally that is a proceed of crime now how the authority will take the action because suppose some officer from the agency notice that there is a proceed of crime in the hands of the person A or B how he will take the action against those persons for guiding purposes section 10 is prescribed in schedule 3 under the title attachment adjudication and confiscation section 5 I will just read then we will proceed further where the director or any other officers below the rank of deputy director authorized by the director for the purpose of this section has reason to believe reason to believe in writing on the basis of the material in his possession that number one any person is in possession of proceed of crime number two such proceed of crime are likely to be concealed in a simple language I will explain you in Hindi also that where the director or any other officer not below the rank of deputy director has reason to believe reason to believe means that he must be sure he has a reason to believe that some material in the possession of the accused party and any person in possession of proceed of crime if he feels that in someone's possession there is a proceed of crime any person and that proceed of crime is a chance to hide that person's accused party therefore it is said that such person of crime are likely to be concealed reason to believe is that suppose I have 10,000 rupees an agency officer feels that 10,000 rupees is a proceed of crime and I will hide it so then basically he may pass the order speaking order that the action can be taken against this person under section 5 and investigation can be carried out and there is a proviso of this section section 5 1 that no such order of attachment shall be made unless in relation to schedule offence schedule offence the provisions of court of CRPC court of criminal procedure and those schedule offence which schedule A is attached to like 428 cheating or bouncing off checks or schedule offence and in relation to the schedule offence a report has been forwarded to the magistrate under section 173 of court of criminal procedure and a complaint has been filed by a person authorized to investigate the offence mentioned in the schedule offence if someone feels that this person has a proceed of crime then he can put a complaint against him that he has a schedule offence, you should investigate this or you have put a charge sheet in 173 under the court of criminal procedure so on the basis of the if the officer is satisfied that the complaint the case is made out and he has a reason to believe that this person has a schedule offence, it is a proceed of crime or he feels that it is a case of money laundering so he can proceed the case for investigation but the situation where it is very different that in Shurichuru there was this language section or vice-over section now over the time it was noticed that the some of the person were involved where there were no complaints or even there is no report under section 173 of court of criminal procedure still they put the agency still they are involved in proceed of crime they are involved in money laundering so I have brought an amendment in which they said I will just explain to you that proviso because by that time there are so many judgments from the high court and the supreme court they say that there is no complaint against this person there is no complaint against this person there is no charge sheet against this person so you cannot take action on this money laundering and there are so many judgments and the agency felt that they have to do something for this that some people are involved in money laundering but because there is no complaint against this person or basically the charge sheet of 173 report it takes time by that time he will dispose of the property and he will enjoy the tainted money so I have brought a proviso the government proviso in which they said that in 2018 there was an added proviso provided I will just read this is also very important provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso first proviso I have read that it is important to have a complaint or it is important to have a 173 report so after that I have brought provided further notwith anything contained in the first proviso any property of any person may be attached under this act if the director or any other officer not below the rank of deputy director authorized by him for the purpose of this section has reason to believe reason to believe in writing on the basis of the material in his possession and if such property involved in money laundering is not attached immediately under this chapter the non-attachment of the property is frustrated any proceeding under this act meaning thereby in simple language the second proviso says that if deputy director or director reason to believe the material I have available during the investigation otherwise this property is involved in money laundering and it is not attached immediately property here means movable property so everything will be frustrated property will be disposed of this proviso first in thumb rule it should be a complaint and it should be a 173 report and now basically second proviso is added that if reason to believe is there in writing but in both the situation the reason to believe has to be given in writing and reasons are to be given I will just give you the example that suppose somebody has a property and he wants the property was purchased from tainted money it is a proceed of crying and suppose he wants to go to abroad by selling this property because he has got some clue that he may be arrested or his property can be attached so if somebody is on the basis of the material the word is on the basis of the material if the officer thinks that this person will go abroad because the copy of agreement is also in his hands that he is disposing of the property he has taken some money and basically there is no need to see any charge sheet at that time then he can basically attach this to the agreement in 19th after 2018 this means suppose after a person has a proceed of crime if he wants to dispose of it and reason to believe that this person must be some evidence this is not a presumption that the officer is forcing that he is sitting quietly sitting quietly he is also involved in the money laundering and go straight to attach his property and even in the middle he is going to go abroad that is why I said he will not apply this he will only do this in which there will be some evidence in which it will seem that this property is going to dispose of like order 38 rule 5 of court of civil procedure that a person takes a loan from a bank and suppose he takes a loan and he does not pay the instalment and the bank people feel that this person is going to go abroad or he will send it to the property because he has taken the property from our loan and he has also made an agreement he has also taken the loan he has done all the work at that time in order 38 rule 5 the court of civil has a jurisdiction in which the injunction order passed the civil court the similar is the position here because originally the intent passed that money should be secured procedure of crime should be secured by against the property whether it is a movable property or immoveable property no there are two views one view is that many people say that how can you how can you proceed with the property without the FIR how can you proceed with the property without any complaint how can you proceed with the property under section 173 of the court of civil procedure it is not possible and whatever second provider is being used that he will dispose of the property he will first state the procedure or the proceeding without any evidence how it is possible that second provider can be invoked by the agency on the other hand agency says that it is a mandatory provision it is a standalone act and the presumption is that he may dispose of the property because the presumption is not mentioned here but they say no basically in the reason to believe they always mention we presume that he will dispose of so this proviso basically is being used by the agency in most of the cases where the FIR is not there charge sheet is not there complaint is not there so this debate because some people are very upset they say that nothing is pending against us how it is possible that my property can be attached whether bank account whether movable property only of the basis of the presumption and the infancy of the officer so these are the provisions which is basically one party says that it is being misused by the agency and other party says that it is correctly used by the authority because ultimately the it is a matter of trial it is a matter of complete evidence if basically after the trial nothing will found the property will be released but the other view is that the my goodwill and reputation will suffer and I cannot dispose of the property it is my property I am not involved how my property can be attached without any valid evidence only on the basis of the presumption of the officer so this is going on because in these days most of the time it is published and it is discussed by various places that it is a political agenda also so we are not concerned at this moment regarding this so on the basis of the same like FIR the PD is ERCIR so ERCIR is registered and then basically officer concerned investigate the matter during the investigation under section 50 of the act the officer has a full authority to summon the witnesses summon the accused party and summon the persons against whom no FIR is there no complaint is pending and no charge is filed so that his view may also be taken because under the second proviso now as far as the statement is concerned and there is a section 50 is a very change in view the supreme court has taken the view that the statement made before the agency under section 50 is admissible in evidence this statement is akin to section 164 of court of civil court 164 is the statement made before the magistrate the same can be used in the evidence as against section 161 which is not admissible in the schedule of ends before the court now it has been on section 50 also there are two views one view is that the statement under section 50 is taken without the cross examination without the allowing the advocates to make the point the only the accused persons are called and they are put under the pressure with pressure to make the admission of the guilt although in many cases it has been noticed that the statement was made and during few weeks the statement that was drawn by the party before the court or before the authority that it was made under the pressure so this debate is still there but in the supreme court they say that the section 50 statement is a valid statement and it can be applied before the special court which can be read as evidence under life under section 164 of the CRPC and it is admissible under the law so section 50 is very important and if on the basis of the statement of all the parties the officer concern is of the view of the property property means movable or removable property is involved in money laundering he can pass the order for provisional attachment and within 180 days he has to then basically it has to go to the adjudicating authority and at that time till the provisional attachment order is passed the official party is not summoned properly and he is not informed that the property is being attached he will come to know about his property provisional by virtue of the serving of the provisional attachment order so during the provisional attachment order he will come to know that why my property was attached what is my fault because nothing is being served copy of the ECI is not served to the accused party the papers are not shared with the accused parties and he is just in aloof he only comes to know when the provisional attachment order is passed because there is a mandatory provision under the act that the provisional order must be served to the adjudicating authority who is the confirming part confirming agency of the provisional attachment order and that is under section 8 of the act section 8 of the act says that at that time all the notices will be issued to the accused parties the person involved in the money laundering or the associate or the friends of the accused party and any other person who has a receipt of crime in his hand received from the accused party so all the notices are served to those parties concerned parties and then the chance was given to all the parties to file their reply within the prescribed time and after filing the reply the adjudicating authority will hear the matter like in court and after hearing after considering all the documents after considering all the evidence the adjudicating authority will ultimately decide whether in case of continuation of attachment of the provisional attachment order should continue if the adjudicating authority will find that it is a case the attachment should be confirmed the attachment will be confirmed accordingly it means that the matter the charge sheet will be filed before the special court and till the evidence is complete the attachment will continue and if in any case the adjudicating authority will find that the provisional attachment order is wrongly passed in partly or otherwise full attachment they can interfere with the order and they can pass the order of release of the attachment property but it has been noticed that in very rare case such order has been passed in most of the cases it was noticed that the provisional attachment order has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority the it was it was a matter of record that now basically for the last 3-4 years only in 1% cases the provisional attachment order is upset but in 99% cases the provisional attachment order is confirmed by the by the adjudicating authority now thereafter under section 8-3 of the act the charge sheet has to be filed before the special court and thereafter there are 2 proceedings for continuation of the attachment if any appeal is filed by the accused party or any other party under section 26 of the prevention of money laundering act 2002 that appeal will go to the appellate authority and the other matter is will go to the that is for conviction will go to the special courts where on the basis of the charge sheet there will be discussion and charges will be framed for money laundering also apart from the schedule offence cases which is FIR is pending under the schedule act of court of criminal procedure and sometime if any appeal is filed continuously simultaneously 2 mitigations are pending one is before the appellate court one is before the special court if any appeal is decided under section 26 there is a chance for another appeal before the high court and thereafter the matter will go to the supreme court as a specially petition if the supreme court is impressed they may interfere if they are not impressed they may reject the they may say no no it is a case till the special court will decide the matter attachment should continue no there is one more catch here that agency has a power under section 810 to take the possession to take the possession of the attached property because this this basically this is this is now relaxed in the judgment is passed in july 2021 but section 810 and can be 36 to put any condition to deposit the pursuit of crime before the ED and give the undertaking that the attachment will continue till the trial is over before the special court or even without any condition the appropriate authority can pass the order or part of the amount or part of the pursuit according to these facts and circumstances of each matter so this is the basically procedure here under the prevention of money laundering here the similar procedure is followed where basically only the moveable property is concerned that is under section 17 of the act that is search and seizure search and seizure here also search and seizure the agency has the power to search the permits of any person if they are reason to believe that somebody is carrying on pursuit of crime by virtue of the money by virtue of the bank account or any other thing where basically that property can be disposed of under section 17 the officer is authorized to search and seizure of the property which is which is equivalent to section 5 and 8 and section 5 and 5 is only related to the moveable property then there is a procedure for moveable property that is shares bank accounts FDRs maintaining the cash in the any bank account so under section 17 the same can be done but in every provision every provision under section 17 19 20 21 22 the reason to believe water has to be passed no there are two view one view is that reason to believe water is not passed it is a mechanical order there is no valid reason for passing the reason to believe water but on the other hand the agency said no presumption is there we are passing the correct order no section 19 says search is conducted on the person who is allegedly involved in the money laundering act section 19 is for section 19 section 20 is for retention of the property section 19 is power to arrest if during the pregnancy of the section 17 proceeding it was noticed that the person was having huge amount which is according to the officer presumed that this money must be involved must be involved or may be involved in pursuit of crime so basically under section 19 the officer can arrest the person concerned and after rest he has to be produced before the 24 hours as a routine matter life under the code of criminal procedure then other is retention of the property that is also under section 20 and retention of the record also some record is there to account books or some documents that can also be that can also be attached but these are the provisions whatever basically section 17 to 22 and section 5 and 8 are to be considered as civil proceedings but the proceeding which are pending before the special court after filing the charge sheet are the criminal proceeding as far as these proceeding for attachment of property or removal there is a debate because many judgments are there from the Gujarat High Court few judgment says that it is a these are criminal proceeding but other view is that these are the civil proceeding therefore basically it can be applied retrospectively because in criminal matter they say the one view is that you cannot apply it retrospectively because this act came in 2002 and you are attaching the property which are purchased in 1990 or 1980 how can you do it then basically I purchased the property in 1980 that came in 2002 how can you presume that this property was purchased in 1980 from the proceed of crime at that time there were no fence under the prevention of marine ordering act you cannot apply retrospectively because the agency basically takes the full advantage because they say no no basically it can be applied retrospectively and the same principle were followed by the agency in other subject that is banami properties under the banami act where now the supreme court has passed the order that it cannot be applied retrospectively so now various cases are being disposed of before the on the basis of the said judgment because the person who has purchased the property 50 years ago and agency say no no it is a banami property how it is possible so then basically supreme court say that cannot be that is too much basically give the view of banami property but as far as retrospective rights are concerned there are many judgment by the high court as well as by the supreme court where basically the view was taken that it cannot be applied for retrospectively even the 7th ban judgments are there that in particularly in criminal proceeding the question of retrospective cannot be it does not arise but now the latest judgment rendered by the supreme court in the month of July 2021 they say it can be applied I will deal with that judgment also no very important point here is also for section 45 regarding regarding grant update in the prevention of money in ordering act you are aware that now suppose the person is involved in schedule offence under the court of criminal procedure has also to obtain the bail under the prevention of money in ordering act 2002 because under section 45 of the act there are 20 procedures the supreme court has dealt with section 25 and justice Roenton and justice Sanjeevi Shankar gave the judgment that the grant of bail under the schedule offence the same tool will apply to the cases in the cases pertaining to prevention of money in ordering act 2002 but within one month the amendment was brought by the government that that will procedure must be followed number one that the bail application must be heard under the prevention of money in ordering act after hearing the government officer secondly the court at the time of the bail must give the reason that this person is not involved in the money laundering then the bail can be granted if there is a doubt and if there is a presumption that he may be involved ultimately after the trial so bail should not be granted because the point is under section 24 of the money laundering act there is a burden of proof in criminal procedure court the burden of proof is upon the prosecution but under the prevention of money laundering act 2002 the burden is upon the accused party because agency says that we have already examined the matter at the time of investigation and section 50 statement was also regarded therefore there is a presumption that the accused is involved all the burden now will be will be put upon the accused to establish that he is not involved in money laundering so burden is totally different in the case of money laundering cases and now in one of the seminar the we are basically being discussed regarding to the condition of section 45 of the act 45 of the prevention of money laundering act 2002 all the judges special court judges as well as judges of the district court were involved and I was addressing this issue before then or even before the judicial academy national judicial academy at Gopal the many of the magistrate special courts or the judges were saying that if we have to read everything because like 4 CDs of 1000 pages sometimes 4000 pages sometimes 2000 pages not less than 1000 pages if we have to go through each and everything and we have come to know that this person is not involved in the money laundering why question of why not question the procedure so this is a very important issue where is being discussed every nook and corner that if the special court will go through everything they will consider everything because there will be delay in filing the in granting the bail or not granting the bail months together and then the magistrate or the special court will say that he is not involved by that time the accused party who is innocent will spend more than months or years together in the jail and then basically why not question the procedure the one has to be give the reason in 40 pages that he is not involved in money laundering then why not basically entire thing should be questioned that particular party this debate is going on and but we can't help it because these are the mandatory provision and it has been noticed that whenever the judgment will come between the various provision of the money laundering act immediately the amendment will come by ordinance or otherwise or under the finance the finance bill basically it is not just not go to the Rajeshwara and it is being passed this is the view of the many many advocates many that this finance on the basis of the finance bill amendment is being carried out on the basis of the on the basis of the ordinance and in order to frustrate the judgments of the High Court as well as of the Supreme Court no special I will just tell you the overall view of the latest judgment rendered by the High Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary and very number of more than 300 petition before the Supreme Court which were argued by various council senior council before justice and other two judges and ultimately the judgment was rendered on 11 July 22 the I will just I will give you both the view that one is the view of the court and other view of the critics of the judgment that judgment part of the judgment has been challenged in the review petition review is still pending and all the amendments as well as the bills are ordinance is also the subject matter because that those were not decided by the judgment which is rendered on 11 July 22 it will be decided later on which is pending before the full bench of the Supreme Court now on 11 July 22 three judges bench of the Supreme Court added by Justice A.M. and Gail K.R. now retired considered the constitutionally of the various provisions of P.M.L.A the basic premise of the decision is that money laundering by itself is one of the genius offenses comparable to terrorism and drug trafficking the court finds that the P.M.L.A. is a special statute equipped with the exceptions to criminal procedure law in order to combat this most genius crime now as far as section 24 of the money laundering is concerned that was also discussed in the judgment because the Supreme Court has discussed about the reverse burden of proof where basically it is held that under section 24 section 24 provides that the burden of proof that the procedure crime are untated property lies on the accused meaning that for the offense of the money laundering the person is guilty person is guilty until proven innocent the court has found that this reverse burden to be justified and in the line with the objects of the act now in the recent judgment I will just read two paragraphs that the condition of the bail under section 245 are that there should be reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty or secondly that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail the conditions are unusual to say the least and third is that the twin condition of P.M.L.A. were given were even stuck down by a two judge bench presided by just his RF Noriman and just his call in the case of Nikesh Tarachantsha in 2017 as it is held that they were creating discriminatory or manifestly arbitrary result based on the nature of the predicate offense that is under the money laundering now other finding is that the bench has also clarified that the authorities under the P.M.L.A. are not police officers because under section 164 161 the evidence is not admissible in evidence before the court the reason is given by the Supreme Court bench it was clarified that the authorities under the P.M.L.A. are not the police officers that proceeding under section 50 50 are inquiry and not the investigation the production of enforcement case information report that is ECIR is not required and it is sufficient if the grounds are disclosed at the time of arrest the statement recorded by the authorities have been clarified to not to be hit by article 20 sub article 3 right against the self in discrimination or article 21 of the constitution of India the in fact the ED is validated as authority having all police powers but not subject to the same invitation the judgment has been read by various journalist advocates and various expert they have their own view I will just read one or two view in this matter that the P.M.L.A. makes the exception to the established law of evidence and the procedure important sovereign purposes direct to the sovereignty and integrity of India that is the view of the police the officer of the ED by equating money laundering to the terrorism and direct and drug trafficking etc. the P.M.L.A. seem to have taken the different direction altogether for example is given by the critics for example after 2019 amendment the exception from the law can be made for terrorists and copyright infringes alike P.M.L.A. has lost sight of the basic old criminal law together and makes it sensible at the end of the day P.M.L.A. is a panel statue aimed to make it out punishment money laundering is only punishable with the maximum of 7 years in prison men in prison men although in the cases of the NDP as the maximum provision is 10 years so how can you say that you are comparing with the money laundering act with the terrorism that was the view of the critics even the substantive provisions of money laundering do not consider money laundering to be crime with the same magnitude as the offense under the TATA and UAPA punishable by death or life imprisonment if the critic were saying that is so why basically the imprisonment is only for 7 years that is the intention of money laundering that you are comparing with the terrorism in the matter because in those provisions in UAPA or the TATA death is involved life imprisonment is involved ironically while upholding such extreme major result for the worst crimes the court has found that the P.M.L.A. is neither a pure regulatory legislation nor a pure panel legislation it is another matter that the amendment of the P.M.L.A. were moved as money bills the validity of which is still pending before the Supreme Court all in all the larger meaning given to money laundering and the unqualified approvals to the reverse burden or the bail provision to whether risk rating something quite disconnected from the money laundering that is a tool to bullet and harass on August 23 the ratio of the Vijay, Madan Lal Choudhary and other petition 300 petition the Supreme Court in the review petition has doubted in the decision authored by the Chief Justice Ganpati Delkam Private Limit stating that much scope has been left for arbitrary application. Shortly thereafter when the review petition was listed before and taken by the bench comprising by the Chief Justice Mr. Zamanla and Justice Maheshwari and Justice Adi Kumar the Chief Justice observed that the bench was primarily convinced that at least the consent position require consideration the reverse proof of burden and the ECIR is not required to be provided to the accused because they are not serving the copy of the because nobody is aware what is allegation against him and his properties attached accounts are attached and suppose one person is having 300 people industry and salary he cannot pay because the accounts are attached as mentioned no paper is served how can you attach anything but the authorities say no unless basically order is passed unless the charge sheet is filed and unless the order is served you are not entitled for anything for the time being the Supreme Court has chosen not to reconsider the decision completely so partly it is pregnant the point here is that this is a situation and this is the overall view in the matter but there are many views views on the money laundering act one view is that it is a correct law if somebody is involved in money laundering why basically proceed of crime should not be attached on the other hand the view is that without identifying the proceed of crime without any reason and the person who is against whom no FIR is pending no charge sheet is filed how can basically his property can be attached without any serving paper without any copy is being served the properties attached without any reason and by that time since even less than 1% conviction is there under the money laundering act for the last 21 years so in the meanwhile reputation and goodwill will be ruined and the person will have a shame in the society and there is the question of presumption does not arise if somebody has got the evidence the evidence should be produced before the accused party that here is the evidence against you therefore basically you are charged and your property attached accordingly but the authority is not agreeable the most people suffer in the money laundering cases are which are innocent parties nobody is disputing that if the person is involved in the money laundering the property should be attached and he should be prosecuted by the special code nobody has a point that he should not be involved but see the mercy of the see the mercy to the innocent parties who are basically suppose they are not involved and the critical rate is 99% so these are the points which are yet to be decided by the Supreme Court we cannot make any comments at this moment but it is a matter of it is a matter of fact that there is no full infrastructure in the authorities as well as cases are more than the infrastructure created and special courts are taking lot of time and they are right in every there are thousands of documents there are thousands of documents 10,000 cases then they don't even suppose the CBI will give the clean sheet to the party but ED says we are stand alone we are basically we are a different authority you must have given the charges but we will not give if the person is acquitted in the schedule of hands they don't agree they say he may be acquitted but we have been independent independent agency our case will continue so this is the overall view in the matter and it is basically in near future you will find that many judgement will come and this matter will be discussed by the high courts in the supreme court I don't know what will happen and what is the ultimately view taken by the IS court but I still feel that as far as the person is involved it is then basically he should be prosecuted it is a very innovative statute but at the same time if the innocent parties are there and the conviction rate is less than 1% then basically one should one should think over how this possible that the people will wait for 20 years 15 years 20 years 25 years for the trial and ultimately the result may be the same of 99% which has occurred only a few percent are prosecuted I say that only gentlemen BCIR should be filed where basically person are involved with the money laundering and at least I say that conviction rate should be 70 to 80% in money laundering matter then basically action should be taken if only for the purpose of numbers then basically innocent parties will be ruined and everybody says the same thing that the agency must look into the issue involved and only basically gentlemen cases the person should be involved and they should be prosecuted thank you so much for hearing me and next time we will discuss defences and other other issue also economic offenses and other and then basically we will decide these matters