Outcomes in matters of constitutional law disputes depend on the values that the constitutional court choose to emphasise over those it chooses to discount. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India, where it found all the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as amended from time to time (“PMLA”) as constitutional, is a case where the Supreme Court repeatedly relies on the legislative intent behind the PMLA to fight the menace of money laundering to trump all other considerations — in particular due process.
A necessary precondition
The PMLA is an Act that is meant to deal with prosecution and punishment for the offence of “money laundering”, which an accused commits when he has relation with any process or activity with the “proceeds of crime” and has projected or claimed such proceeds as untainted property. Thus, for the PMLA to come into action, there must have been another crime — independent of the PMLA — from which monies were derived. This other crime, which is a necessary precondition for an offence under the PMLA is described as the predicate offence.
