Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (April 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Parliament of India
Long title An Act to prevent land laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Citation	Act No.15 of 2003
Enacted by	Parliament of India
Enacted	17 January 2003
Assented to	17 January 2003
Commenced	1 July 2005
Amended by
The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2005, The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009
Status: In force

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted by the NDA government to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from money-laundering.^[1][2] PMLA and the Rules notified there under came into force with effect from 1 July 2005. The Act and Rules notified there under impose obligation on banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to verify identity of clients, maintain records and furnish information in prescribed form to Financial Intelligence Unit - India (FIU-IND).^[3]

The act was amended in the year 2005, 2009 and 2012.^[4]

On 24 November 2017, in a ruling in favour of citizens' liberty, the Supreme Court has set aside a clause in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which made it virtually impossible for a person convicted to more than three years in jail to get bail if the public prosecutor opposed it. (Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002, provides that no person can be granted bail for any offence under the Act unless the public prosecutor, appointed by the government, gets a chance to oppose his bail. And should the public prosecutor choose to oppose bail, the court has to be convinced that the accused was not guilty of the crime and additionally that he/she was not likely to commit any offence while out on bail- a tall order by any count.) (It observed that the provision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution)