Announcement of the Board of Directors on referral to Jairam Ramesh on Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Center asking for its position regarding the plea submitted by Congressman Jairam Ramesh, challenging the PMLA’s amendment of 2015.
Ramesh appealed to the Supreme Court after the High Court in Delhi in February rejected his plea of ??denying PMLA amendments through account of money that violated not only the Constitution, but also the principles of federalism.
Representative Ramesh, senior lawyer P. Chidambaram, said in a bench led by Judge S.A. Bobde that the law on anti-money laundering law has been passed to Rajya Sabha as a law on money that protects him from the amendment.
The judge asked Chidambaram: “You claim that the plea is in the public interest. But how are you affected? “
Judge Bobde said the High Court in Delhi had already given harsh observations stating that the applicant had nothing to do with the law. Chidambaran insisted that his client was a member of parliament.
Ramesh’s petition stated that the money bill was a special type of law that could only be introduced into Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha could not alter or reject it.
“Accordingly, the provisions of the law on money must be interpreted very strictly and strictly, and only if the law strictly adheres to the definitions of the bank [as defined in Article 110 (1)], can it be adopted as a banknote. If the provisions of the law do not fall under the strict definition of the law on money, that law can not be adopted as a banknote, “the statement said.
The Congress leader said he was outraged by the actions of the government that illegally passed Articles 145 through 151 of the Finance Act, 2015, Article 232 of the Law on Finance, 2016, and Article 208 of the Finance Act, 2018, as the provisions of the law about money. .
“Under these amendments, the definition of” income from crime “has been extended to include the value of assets held in the country, which is equal to the value of assets outside the country in which the property in question was retained or taken out of the country and the deputy director of the Enforcement Administration was authorized to report the property without filing an appeal.
He asked the court to cancel the changes to the Finance Act.
The central government opposed the plea and examined Ramesh’s place in filing a public complaint.
The court also asked Ramesh why he had spoken to him now when the amendments were made in 2015. Chidambaram told the court that he was not aware of the changes that had been made earlier in these provisions. When he examined the case, he noticed that this could be misused, and therefore turned to the court.

Sharing is caring!