Madras High Court Dismisses TN Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan's Plea Challenging PMLA Proceedings By ED

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam dismissed Radhakrishnan's plea and asked him to cooperate with the investigating agency to complete the probe in the money laundering case and allow it to file a final report before the special court.

Copy of detailed judgment is awaited.

The allegation against the Minister is that while serving as an MLA of Tiruchendur Assembly Constituency and subsequently as a Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department during the period from 2002-2006, he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.2,68,24,7555/- in his name, his wife's name, two brothers and three sons. Based on this, the Directorate of Enforcement filed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) which was sought to be quashed in the present case.

Radhakrishnan contended that the ECIR was filed on the premise that the offences were scheduled offences. He submitted that the Directorate had registered the ECIR for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, the PMLA came into force only on 1st July 2005 and at that time also Section 13 was not part of the scheduled offences under the Act. It was submitted that the duration of the predicate offence was the Check period of 14.05.2001 to 31.03.2006. Hence, he contended that the provisions of the Act were invoked against him retrospectively.

Radhakrishnan further argued that the PMLA, being a penal statute could not operate retrospectively and the same would be violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

It was also submitted that the offence under Section 13 would get attracted only when a person fails to explain the alleged excess of assets and that the lack of explanation to account for the assets in the hands of the accused person by itself will not result in the generation of crime proceeds.

In June 2022, a division bench of the High Court had stayed the probe. Though this stay was vacated later, on appeal, the Supreme Court revived the ad-interim stay noting that the same was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another

Case No: WP 16467 of 2022