₹18,000 Crore Returned To Banks From Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi: Centre Tells SC

Notably, the bench was hearing a clutch of petitions, challenging the wide scope of powers available to the directorate of enforcement (ED) for search, seizure, investigation, and attachment of proceeds of crime under the law. 

New Delhi: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Wednesday informed a Supreme Court bench that Rs 18,000 crore have been returned to the banks in the case of Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi. However, the total proceeds of crimes in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases pending before the top court amounts to Rs 67,000 crore, S-G Mehta, who was representing the Centre told the apex court.

“As of date 4,700 cases are being investigated by the Enforcement and the number of cases taken up for investigation each year in the last 5 years varies from 111 cases in 2015-16 to 981 in 2020-21 and Rs 18,000 crore have been returned to the banks in the case of Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi”, S-G Mehta submitted before the bench which also comprises Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar.

Notably, the bench was hearing a clutch of petitions, challenging the wide scope of powers available to the directorate of enforcement (ED) for search, seizure, investigation, and attachment of proceeds of crime under the law.

Meanwhile, Mehta emphasized that the measures against money laundering have clearly left the embryo of drug or terrorism-related offences and moved beyond the same. “Further, the efforts against money laundering have consistently advocated to include the widest range of predicate offences in the domestic laws,” he added.

Over the past few weeks, a battery of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Amit Desai, and others have made submissions before the top court on various aspects related to potential misuse of PMLA provisions introduced by way of amendments to the Act.

The law has been criticised on various aspects: stringent bail conditions, non-communication of grounds of arrest, arrest of persons without the supply of ECIR (akin to FIR), broad definitions of money laundering and proceeds of crime, and statements given by accused during investigation made admissible as evidence during the trial.

(With IANS Inputs)