4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

TEAM CODE: 4JMMCC 02

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT JUDGE

(DESIGNATED SPECIAL COURT FOR PMLA UNDER THE PREVENTION OF

MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002)

IN THE MATTERS OF:

THE STATE …PROSECUTION

VERSUS

TECHCORP … DEFENSE

COMPLAINT CASE NO. OF 2025

IN ECIR/--/2025

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENSE

[1]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

[2]
4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Expansions

& And

AIR All India Reporter

BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Art. Article

Anr. Another

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

DD Deputy director

ED Enforcement directorate

HC High Court

IPC Indian penal code

Ors. Others

Prop. Proposition

Reg. Registration/Registered

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UK United Kingdom

QB Queen’s Bench

[3]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LIST

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3286.

2. Jagati Publications Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate, Telangana High Court (2022).
3. Directorate of Enforcement v. Gagandeep Singh and Others (2022)
4. 4.Rudragouda Patil @ R.D.Patil v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Petition
No.4961 of 2023.
5. Enforcement Directorate Government of India V. Kapil Wadhawan (2023)
6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
7. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 237
8. Govada Daivasirwadam V. The Union of India, W.P. No. 32513 of 2021
9. Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka, AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 525
10. V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Crl.O.P.No. 1525 of 2024
11. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2006) 4 SCC 278
12. K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 48
13. Hitesh Bhatia v. Kumar Vivekanand 3207/2020
14. Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3721
15. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576
16. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254
17. Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 105
18. Prem Prakash v. Union of India (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5416/2024)
19. Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, (2025) 1 SCC 404
20. Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1021
21. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
22. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190
23. Assistant Commissioner v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 405

[4]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

CONSTITUITON AND STATUTES

1. The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002

2. Constitution of India

3. The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

RESEARCH ARTICLES

1.https://www.scobserver.in/reports/challenges-to-the-prevention-of-money-laundering-
act-pmla-judgement-summary/

2.https://p39ablog.com/2022/07/pmla-explained

3.https://www.metalegal.in/post/breaking-the-chains-of-prolonged-detention-supreme-
court-reaffirms-bail-rights-in-economic-offences#viewer-1pigu2079 (last visited on
February 14,2025)

4.https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ed-cant-arrest-accused-after-special-court-
has-taken-cognisance-of-complaint-sc/article68181485.ece

5.https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/11/08/section-1971-crpc-applicability-
complaint-under-pmla-sc-legal-news/

[5]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Special Court is empowered to hear this case by the virtue of Section 43 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Section reads as:

43. Special Courts. — (1) The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of
the High Court, shall, for trial of offence punishable under section 4, by notification, designate
one or more Courts of Session as Special Court or Special Courts or such area or areas or for
such case or class or group of cases as may be specified in the notification.

Explanation. — In this sub-section, “High Court” means the High Court of the State in which
a Sessions Court designated as Special Court was functioning immediately before such
designation.

(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than
an offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.

[6]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

STATEMENT OF FACTS

TechCorp’s Profile and Business Operations: TechCorp is a prominent technology firm in

Indistaan specializing in software development and digital solutions. With a significant
presence in both domestic and international markets, the company reports annual revenues
exceeding Rs. 500 Crore.

Initiation of the Investigation: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an investigation

into TechCorp following intelligence reports alleging the company’s involvement in a
sophisticated money laundering scheme. The scheme is said to span multiple jurisdictions and
employs advanced financial technologies.

Alleged Use of Shell Companies: The investigation revealed that TechCorp allegedly created
multiple shell companies to issue fake invoices for non-existent services. These shell entities
were purportedly used to obscure the origins of illicit funds and facilitate the transfer of money
across borders.

Whistleblower Documents and Offshore Accounts: An internal whistleblower provided

documents indicating that approximately Rs. 200 Crore was funneled through these shell
companies into offshore accounts, primarily in jurisdictions known for their banking secrecy.

Cryptocurrency Transactions: The ED discovered that TechCorp utilized cryptocurrency

transactions as part of its money laundering operations. Reports suggest that over Rs. 50 Crore
was transferred via cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which were later converted into fiat
currency in various foreign banks.

Disguised International Remittances: Further complicating the money trail, TechCorp is

alleged to have remitted funds outside Indistaan using cryptocurrencies. These transactions
were disguised as payments for non-existent software imports from Singapore, raising
questions about the oversight of digital currency transactions.

Link to NIUM Singapore Pte Ltd: The investigation identified that these transactions were
connected to a global forex settlement platform, NIUM Singapore Pte Ltd. This platform
allegedly processed payments based on fake invoices raised by the shell companies associated
with TechCorp.

[7]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

Search Operations and Asset Seizure: The ED conducted multiple search operations at
TechCorp’s headquarters and associated offices. During these operations, documents, digital
devices, and financial records were seized. Additionally, assets worth approximately Rs. 150
Crore—including luxury cars and real estate holdings—were provisionally attached under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Freezing of Bank Accounts: In conjunction with the search operations, bank accounts linked
to the shell companies were frozen as they were found to contain substantial sums believed to
be proceeds of crime.

Public Scrutiny and Corporate Governance Concerns: The aggressive actions of the ED
have led to significant public scrutiny, particularly regarding its investigative methods and the
implications these actions have for corporate governance within the technology sector.

Accusation of Generating Proceeds of Crime: TechCorp is accused of generating Proceeds

of Crime (PoC) through fraudulent transactions involving fake invoices and shell companies.
These complex networks allegedly served to obscure the true source and destination of the
funds.

Constitutional Rights and Due Process Concerns: TechCorp’s legal team argues that the
ED’s actions infringe upon the company’s constitutional rights, particularly the right to due
process under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. They contend that the ED has not
provided adequate evidence linking TechCorp directly to any scheduled offense as required
under the PMLA.

Transparency and Access to Investigative Documents: The defense further raises concerns
about the lack of transparency in the ED’s investigative methods, notably the denial of access
to critical documents such as the Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs).

Filing of the Charge Sheet: Following its investigation, the ED filed a charge sheet against
TechCorp’s CEO and several executives under the PMLA, alleging a conspiracy to commit
money laundering. In response, TechCorp has challenged the ED’s actions in court, arguing
that the agency failed to establish a clear link between its activities and any scheduled offense
as defined under the PMLA.

[8]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue 1: Whether it is necessary for the ED (Enforcement Directorate) to establish a clear

connection between alleged money laundering activities and a recognized scheduled offense
before initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)?

Issue 2: Whether constitutional protections apply in cases involving economic offenses?

Specifically, what are the implications of denying access to Enforcement Case Information
Reports (ECIRs) on due process rights under the Constitution?

Issue 3: Whether corporate entities like TechCorp can be held liable for financial misconduct
perpetrated by their employees? What standards should be applied when determining the
culpability of corporate bodies in such instances?

Issue 4: Whether, given the increasing use of cryptocurrencies in alleged financial crimes,
regulatory measures should be implemented to prevent misuse while balancing the need to
promote innovation and technological development?

Issue 5: Whether recent judicial interpretations affect the operational scope of investigative
agencies like the ED? What implications do these rulings have for future investigations into
corporate entities and economic offenses?

Issue 6: Whether the provisions of the BNSS affect the procedural aspects of the ED’s
investigation? Are there specific statutory requirements that must be fulfilled before the
agency proceeds with arrests or searches under this framework?

Issue 7: Whether the definitions and penalties outlined in the BNSS apply to TechCorp's
alleged actions? Can the company and its employees be effectively prosecuted under this new
legal framework?

[9]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether it is necessary for the ED (Enforcement Directorate) to establish a

clear connection between alleged money laundering activities and a recognized
scheduled offense before initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA)?

TechCorp argues that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must establish a clear link between
alleged money laundering and a scheduled offense before initiating proceedings under PMLA.
Judicial precedents emphasize this requirement to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Without this
nexus, ED’s actions risk overreach and violate due process. Investigating based on mere
suspicion undermines legal safeguards, as seen in cases like Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
Gagandeep Singh. Ensuring evidentiary rigor is crucial to maintaining fairness and preventing
misuse of power.

Issue 2: Whether constitutional protections apply in cases involving economic offenses?

Specifically, what are the implications of denying access to Enforcement Case
Information Reports (ECIRs) on due process rights under the Constitution?

TechCorp argues that withholding the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) from the
accused violates constitutional protections, particularly the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
Denying access to such crucial documents undermines due process and natural justice, leaving
the accused at a disadvantage. Judicial precedents emphasize that enforcement agencies, like
the ED, must operate within constitutional limits. Failure to disclose the ECIR disrupts fairness,
risking miscarriages of justice and eroding public trust in the legal system.

Issue 3: Whether corporate entities like TechCorp can be held liable for financial
misconduct perpetrated by their employees? What standards should be applied when
determining the culpability of corporate bodies in such instances?

TechCorp contends that it cannot be held liable for financial misconduct under the PMLA due
to insufficient evidence. Section 70 requires proof of consent, connivance, or negligence by
company leadership, which the ED failed to establish. Judicial precedents emphasize that
mere allegations against employees do not implicate the company. The prosecution must
prove corporate intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Without concrete evidence of proceeds of
crime, TechCorp argues that liability under the PMLA is unfounded.

[10]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

Issue 4: Whether, given the increasing use of cryptocurrencies in alleged financial

crimes, regulatory measures should be implemented to prevent misuse while balancing
the need to promote innovation and technological development?

Cryptocurrency’s decentralized nature makes government regulation impractical, as it operates

on a distributed ledger without central control. The Ministry of Finance acknowledges the need
for global collaboration on regulations. Legal precedents affirm cryptocurrency trading as a
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). Defining crypto as an asset remains challenging, and
excessive regulation may stifle innovation and drive service providers to less regulated
markets. Instead of imposing restrictions, fostering innovation and technological advancement
should be prioritized.

Issue 5: Whether recent judicial interpretations affect the operational scope of

investigative agencies like the ED? What implications do these rulings have for future
investigations into corporate entities and economic offenses?

TechCorp argues that the ED’s expansive investigative powers under PMLA lead to
constitutional violations and procedural unfairness. Sections 5 and 17 require written
justification for provisional attachment and searches, which ED failed to provide. Supreme
Court rulings emphasize procedural safeguards, including access to arrest grounds and fair bail
considerations. Courts must ensure ED operates transparently, preventing misuse of power
while balancing enforcement with fundamental rights. Judicial oversight is essential to
maintaining due process and corporate protections.

Issue 6: Whether the provisions of the BNSS affect the procedural aspects of the ED’s
investigation? Are there specific statutory requirements that must be fulfilled before the
agency proceeds with arrests or searches under this framework?

TechCorp argues that the ED violated procedural safeguards under BNSS and PMLA, leading
to due process and constitutional violations. BNSS Sections 47, 62, and 105 mandate
transparency in arrests, searches, and seizures, which ED failed to uphold. The SC in Tarsem
Lal limited ED’s arrest powers post-cognizance. Additionally, ED v. Bibhu Prasad affirmed
that CrPC provisions apply to PMLA cases. Judicial oversight is essential to prevent arbitrary
enforcement and ensure procedural fairness in financial investigations.

[11]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

Issue 7: Whether the definitions and penalties outlined in the BNSS apply to TechCorp's
alleged actions? Can the company and its employees be effectively prosecuted under this
new legal framework?

TechCorp argues that BNSS is a procedural statute and does not define offenses, impose
penalties, or create corporate liability. Citing Kartar Singh and Thamisharasi, it asserts that
BNSS regulates prosecution but does not establish substantive crimes. The Supreme Court in
Velliappa Textiles and Sunil Bharti Mittal held that corporate liability must be explicitly
defined in substantive law. Since BNSS does not criminalize TechCorp’s actions, it cannot
serve as the basis for prosecution or penalties.

[12]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ED (ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE)

TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN ALLEGED MONEY
LAUNDERING ACTIVITIES AND A RECOGNIZED SCHEDULED OFFENSE
BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY
LAUNDERING ACT (PMLA)?

1. It is humbly submitted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should be required to establish
a clear, evidentiary link between the alleged money laundering activities and a recognized
scheduled offense before initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act (PMLA) 1. The core of TechCorp’s argument is that without this clear nexus, the
application of the PMLA becomes overly broad, potentially misusing investigative powers
and jeopardizing the fairness of the legal process.
2. Firstly, the importance of establishment of recognized scheduled offense has to be understood.

Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 2defines money laundering-

Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a

party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the 1[proceeds of crime
including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as
untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,--

a. a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly
or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually
involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of
crime, namely:-

i. concealment; or

1
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
2
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 3

[13]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

ii. possession; or

iii. acquisition; or

iv. use; or

v. projecting as untainted property; or

vi. claiming as untainted property,

in any manner whatsoever;

(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and
continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its
concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or
claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.

3. It may be rightly pointed out that the money laundering should be related to the proceeds
of crime derived from the scheduled offense committed by the person who is directly or
indirectly involved in the proceeds of crime. PMLA defines proceeds of crime under sec 2
(u)3

“Proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any
person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such
property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property
equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

4. The defense humbly submits that the section 3 of PMLA 4is inclusive of three basic elements.
Proceeds of crime, Commission of the predicate offense, and projecting and claiming the
property as untainted property. It is humbly submitted that the predicate offense is in
consonance with committing the scheduled offense under the said act.

5. Firstly, the offense is initiated with the commission of the predicate offense. PMLA defines
predicate offence i.e., the scheduled offence as

PMLA defines “Scheduled offence” under sec 2(y)— 5

3
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 2(u)
4
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 3
5
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 2(y)

[14]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part
B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more;
or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.

6. Under the PMLA, the statutory framework mandates that proceeds of crime (PoC) must
originate from a scheduled offense. TechCorp asserts that without a demonstrable link
between the fraudulent activities and an underlying scheduled offense, the ED’s initiation of
proceedings under the PMLA is premature and potentially unjust.

7. Initiating proceedings without establishing a definite connection between the alleged

fraudulent transactions and a scheduled offense not only misapplies the PMLA but also sets
a dangerous precedent for arbitrary enforcement. The requirement for a clear nexus is,
therefore, a necessary check on the power of investigative agencies, ensuring that actions
taken are both legally sound and proportionate to the evidence available.

8. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India6
emphasized that the offence under Section 3 of PMLA is dependent on the wrongful and
illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The
existence of proceeds of crime, as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, is essential
for the ED to have jurisdiction to initiate prosecution. In the absence of such proceeds, the
authorities under PMLA would have no jurisdiction to act. This was given even more weight
in the case of Jagati Publications Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate.7

9. Also, The Delhi High Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Gagandeep Singh 8 and Others
(2022) reiterated that there exists an "umbilical cord connection" between the scheduled
offence and the offence of money laundering. This means that for the ED to proceed, there
must be a clear link established between the alleged money laundering activities and an
underlying scheduled offence.

10. It is submitted that without any registration of scheduled offense and on mere intelligence
reports and whistle-blower information, ED started its investigation and not only it stopped
at the stage of investigation but went further with searching, seizing and attaching properties

6
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3286.
7
Jagati Publications Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate, Telangana High Court (2022).
8
Directorate of Enforcement v. Gagandeep Singh and Others* (2022)

[15]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

of Techcorp, which if allowed will give authorities like ED power to act arbitrarily to take
action at the smallest of rumours, which will eventually defeat the very essence of rule of law.

11. The legislative intent behind the PMLA was to combat serious economic crimes while
ensuring that enforcement actions do not overreach. TechCorp maintains that the ED’s failure
to conclusively demonstrate that the funds were derived from a scheduled offense undermines
the Act’s safeguards. Judicial precedents have stressed the importance of a clear evidentiary
nexus before applying stringent legal provisions, ensuring that enforcement actions remain
within the boundaries of due process. By bypassing this crucial requirement, the ED risks
conducting investigations on a mere suspicion rather than on solid, statutory ground.

12. In Rudragouda Patil @ R D Patil v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023)9, it was argued that
the absence of jurisdictional facts—namely, a combination of criminal activity amounting to
a scheduled offence, the generation of proceeds of crime, and the act of money laundering
prevents the ED from stepping in. The court highlighted the danger of allowing the ED to
conduct investigations without any material linking the alleged money laundering to a
scheduled offence.

13. So, it is most humbly submitted that the clear delineation between generating proceeds of
crime and laundering those proceeds must be respected to uphold the principles of fairness
and legal certainty and the same is not done by the ED which basically negates the
investigation which has took place so far.

2.WHETHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS APPLY IN CASES INVOLVING

ECONOMIC OFFENSES? SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF
DENYING ACCESS TO ENFORCEMENT CASE INFORMATION REPORTS
(ECIRS) ON DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?

1. It is humbly submitted that constitutional protections and fundamental rights are the bedrock
of our legal system. These rights, enshrined in the Constitution, are essential to ensuring that
every individual or entity, regardless of the nature of the allegations against them, receives
fair treatment under the law. Even in cases of economic offenses where the stakes may be
high and the investigations complex these protections cannot be compromised. Economic

9
Rudragouda Patil @ R.D.Patil v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Petition No.4961 of 2023.

[16]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

crimes, though serious, do not grant the state the power to bypass constitutional safeguards
that protect due process, natural justice, and the right to a fair trial 10, in Enforcement
Directorate Government of India V. Kapil Wadhawan (2023) 11, the court reiterated that
personal liberty should not be collateral damage in the enforcement of laws aimed at
preventing economic crimes.
2. Article 21 of the Constitution 12
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the
judiciary has expansively interpreted to include the right to a fair, just, and reasonable
procedure. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India13, the Supreme Court held that the “procedure
established by law” must not be arbitrary but must adhere to standards of fairness and
reasonableness. This principle means that any investigative action by the state must allow the
accused an opportunity to know and challenge the evidence against them.

3. The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is a crucial document in economic

investigations by the ED. It contains the foundation of the allegations and evidence gathered
by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Denying access to the ECIR effectively denies the
accused the opportunity to engage with the evidence, thereby violating the due process
guarantees of Article 21 14. Moreover, as emphasized in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India15,
any restriction on constitutional rights must be both necessary and proportionate—a balance
that is upset when critical investigative documents are withheld.

4. ED not only at the stage of primary investigation but also after searching, seizing and
attaching the property of the defense, ED didn’t provide the copy of ECIR to the defense, nor
the grounds on which the investigation was proceeded with were communicated. The
principle of natural justice requires that every accused party is given a fair chance to be heard
and to contest the evidence presented against them. Withholding the ECIR undermines this
principle by preventing the accused from accessing the details that form the basis of the
investigation. This is similar to denying the accused a copy of the First Information Report
(FIR) in criminal cases, which is a clear breach of the principle of audi alteram partem (the
right to be heard).

10
Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/challenges-to-the-prevention-of-money-laundering-act-pmla-
judgement-summary/
11
Enforcement Directorate Government of India V. Kapil Wadhawan (2023)
12
The Constitution of India, arts. 21
13
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
14
The Constitution of India, arts. 21
15
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 237

[17]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

Judicial pronouncements, such as in Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka16, stress that a

failure to provide the accused with all pertinent information disrupts the fairness of the trial.
When the state refuses to disclose the ECIR, it creates an imbalance where the investigative
agency holds all the facts, leaving the accused at a severe disadvantage in preparing their
defense.

5. Judiciary has always held constitutional protections over the operations of authorities like ED
be it article 20 and 22. Courts have frequently noted that statements given to ED by accused
are not admissible in court similar to that in the case of police to promote article 20(3).
Furthermore, The Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director (2024)17 pointed
out that constitutional courts can intervene if the detention violates the rights guaranteed
under Article 21 and 2218.

6. While the ED is vested with considerable powers 19

under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA), these powers are not without limits. The judiciary has consistently
reiterated that enforcement agencies must exercise their authority within the boundaries set
by constitutional law. In cases such as Govada Daivasirwadam V. The Union of India20, the
courts have underscored that the ECIR is foundational to proceedings under the PMLA, and
its non-disclosure severely hampers the ability of the accused to mount an effective defense.
This judicial oversight is crucial for maintaining the balance between the state’s interest in
investigating economic crimes and the individual’s right to a fair trial. The courts have made
it clear that any overreach by the ED such as an indiscriminate denial of access to critical
investigative documents can lead to a miscarriage of justice. Such actions not only erode
public trust in the legal system but also set a dangerous precedent for the unchecked exercise
of state power.

7. The denial of access to the ECIR strikes at the very heart of constitutional protections by
undermining due process, natural justice, and the right to a fair trial and allowing this denial
will severely violate the fundamental and constitutional rights of Techcorp which will set a
dangerous precedent.

16
Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka, AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 525
17
V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Crl.O.P.No. 1525 of 2024
18
The Constitution of India, arts. 21,22
19
Available at: https://p39ablog.com/2022/07/pmla-explained/ (last visited on February 11, 2025)
20
Govada Daivasirwadam V. The Union of India, W.P. No. 32513 of 2021

[18]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

3. WHETHER CORPORATE ENTITIES LIKE TECHCORP CAN BE HELD LIABLE

FOR FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT PERPETRATED BY THEIR EMPLOYEES?
WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED WHEN DETERMINING THE
CULPABILITY OF CORPORATE BODIES IN SUCH INSTANCES?

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that techcorp shall not held liable for
financial misconduct due to the major reason of insufficient evidences as in
PMLA Section 7021 (Offenses by Companies) states that directors or officers can only be
held liable if: The offense was committed with their consent or connivance, or
The offense was due to their negligence. But the state failed to provide any concrete
evidence which shows that company’s leadership was involved in alleged offenses and If
there is no scheduled offense directly attributed to TechCorp, the company as a whole
cannot be prosecuted under PMLA because- Section 3 of PMLA defines money laundering
as an offense committed by a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, assists,
or is knowingly a party to the process of concealing "proceeds of crime" 22. Section 70
(Offenses by Companies) states that a company can be held liable only if the crime is
committed with the consent or connivance of directors or officers 23.
2. The counsel would also like to highlight the fact that ED was unable to provide concrete
evidence of the existence of proceeds of crime rather they are just accusing techcorp for
generating proceeds of crime , And supreme court in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India case clarified that the offence under Section 3 of PMLA is
dependent on the wrongful and illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence 24. The existence of proceeds of crime is essential for
prosecution under PMLA and in the case of our situation the state of unable to find any
proceeds of crime hence we can to be charged for the offence of money laundering
3. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement case established that a company
cannot be held guilty automatically unless the prosecution proves its direct involvement in
the crime 25
and hence mere allegations of financial misconduct by employees do not

21
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 70
22
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 3
23
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 70
24
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1
25
Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2006) 4 SCC 278

[19]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

establish corporate culpability under PMLA. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble
court that the standards that should be applied while determining the culpability of
corporate bodies shall must include:
4. Direct managerial involvement should be required for corporate liability.
as already established in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2015) 4 SCC 609
Employee misconduct should not automatically transfer to the company, which was
established in the case of K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora & Anr. 4826
and finally it must be given due importance that the prosecution must prove corporate
intent beyond a reasonable doubt

5. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that techcorp shall not be held
liable for the misconduct of their employees and the standards that should be applied when
determining the culpability of corporate bodies in such instances shall must include
concrete evidences to be given by ED before accusing Techcorp

4. WHETHER, GIVEN THE INCREASING USE OF CRYPTOCURRENCIES IN

ALLEGED FINANCIAL CRIMES, REGULATORY MEASURES SHOULD BE
IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT MISUSE WHILE BALANCING THE NEED TO
PROMOTE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT?

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Cryptocurrency has no need of
government regulation and it is also not practically possible for the government because of
its (cryptocurrency’s) decentralized nature, meaning it operates on a network without a
central issuing authority like RBI, making it inherently resistant to government control or
manipulation; essentially, no single entity can dictate its value or transactions, as it is
managed by a distributed ledger across multiple computers worldwide.

2. The creation of a cryptocurrency involves understanding blockchain technology, consensus

mechanisms, and legal considerations. The process necessitates technical knowledge, time,
and resources, but it provides a process for developing a digital asset with specific
characteristics or functions.

26
K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 48

[20]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

3. It is submitted that, there are three main methods to create a cryptocurrency: constructing a
unique blockchain, altering an existing blockchain, or generating a token on an existing
blockchain. Units of cryptocurrency are created through a process called mining, which
involves using computer power to solve complicated mathematical problems that generate
coins. Users can also buy the currencies from brokers, then store and spend them using
cryptographic wallets.

4. The counsel would also like to highlight the fact that the “Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) are
by definition borderless and require international collaboration to prevent regulatory
arbitrage. Therefore, any comprehensive regulatory framework on the subject can be
effective only with significant international collaboration on evaluation of the risks and
benefits and evaluation of common taxonomy and standards,” said the Ministry of Finance
in parliament.

5. The judgment in Hitesh Bhatia v. Kumar Vivekanand27 emphasizes that dealing in

cryptocurrencies, including bitcoins, is legal and falls under the fundamental right to carry
on trade and profession as per Article 19(1)(g)28 of the Constitution of India. This judgment
establishes that individuals engaging in cryptocurrency transactions are exercising a
legitimate right, which should not be unduly restricted by regulatory measures that impact
the overall independent functioning of cryptocurrencies.

6. it is further submitted before the hon’ble court that it is very difficult to regulate the inflow
and outflow of capital to VDAs as they can be transferred to anyone outside of the RBI’s
scrutiny purview. Cryptocurrencies are also risky to use as they are not traceable and one
cannot reverse transactions with a court order. Cryptocurrencies run on a distributed public
ledger called blockchain, a record of all transactions updated and held by currency holders.

7. A key challenge with regulating crypto is that it transcends political borders – another key
feature of the digital asset. It is global and accessible anywhere in the world to anyone with
an internet connection. The other issue that consistently comes up when discussing the
feasibility of regulating crypto is how hard it is to define crypto as an asset. Whether it is a
currency, security or commodity will influence the policies built to regulate it.

27
Hitesh Bhatia v. Kumar Vivekanand 3207/2020
28
The Constitution of India, arts. 19(1)(g)

[21]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

8. Finally, overbearing intervention in the market could become a barrier to innovation, and
trigger an exodus of service providers to jurisdictions with less regulatory scrutiny. This
could prove detrimental to the market overall, as service providers which do so would now
face less oversight while still offering their services to investors in other markets, given the
borderless nature of cryptocurrencies. It is concluded that instead of the increasing use of
cryptocurrencies in alleged financial crimes, regulatory measures should be avoided for
promoting and enhancing innovation and technological development.

5. WHETHER RECENT JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AFFECT THE

OPERATIONAL SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES LIKE THE ED? WHAT
IMPLICATIONS DO THESE RULINGS HAVE FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS
INTO CORPORATE ENTITIES AND ECONOMIC OFFENSES?

1. The defense, TechCorp, submits that the judicial interpretations concerning the
Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigative powers under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) 29 have been overly expansive, leading to potential misuse
of authority and violations of fundamental rights. While economic offenses warrant strict
regulation, the unrestricted powers of the ED raise concerns about procedural fairness,
constitutional rights, and the potential for overreach. Courts must ensure that investigative
agencies operate within the bounds of due process while maintaining transparency and
accountability.
2. Section 530 of PMLA, 2002 talks about the provisional attachment of property involved in
money-laundering:
Where the Director or any other officer…. has reason to believe that— (a) any person is in
possession of any proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be
concealed, transferred or dealt….. he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such
property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order.
3. Section 1731 of PMLA, 2002 states the procedure of search and seizure:
Where … officer has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing)
that any person (i) has committed any act which constitutes money-laundering, or (ii) is in
possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering, or iii) is in possession
of any records relating to money-laundering,1[or] 1[(iv) is in possession of any property

29
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
30
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 5
31
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s. 17

[22]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

related to crime,] then.. he can (a) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or
aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of crime are kept;

4. The Defense humbly submits that ED has not provided adequate evidence linking them
directly to any scheduled offense as required under the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act (PMLA). The ED also has not provided the defenses with ECIR or with any reason in
writing as to why the properties or the search was carried out. In Pankaj Bansal32, (2024)
7 SCC 576, the two-judge SC Bench after analysing the provisions contained in Section
19(1)33 PMLA observed as under: (SCC p.598, para 45)-
“On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the
statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds
of the arrests, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written
grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth that a copy of such written
grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without
exception.”
5. This ruling has also been followed in the case of Prabir Purkayashta34, (2024) 8 SCC 254.
The SC has held in the case of Ram Kishor Arora35 that though the written grounds of
arrest need not be supplied to the accused at the time of arrest, but so long as the same are
supplied to the accused, as soon as may be, and within 24 hours of the arrest, the same
would be sufficient.
6. The SC has also held in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary36 that if the accused has
been informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest as
soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within 24 hours, that would be sufficient
compliant of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India. The recent Supreme Court decision in Prem Prakash v. Union of India37 is pivotal
in interpreting s. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’),
particularly its restrictive twin conditions for granting bail. While these conditions make
bail more stringent, the Court emphasized that they do not amount to an absolute
prohibition. By reaffirming the principle that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception,’ the

32
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576
33
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s.19(1)
34
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254
35
Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 105
36
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1
37
Prem Prakash v. Union of India (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5416/2024)

[23]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

judgment ensures that the application of s. 45 is balanced with constitutional safeguards

under a. 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’), which protects personal liberty.
38
This case emphasizes that courts must assess the evidence carefully and not deny bail
solely based on allegations or antecedents, thereby upholding the presumption of
innocence and the right to a fair trial.
7. In line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the Court
reiterated that it is not required to delve deeply into the merits of the case at the bail stage.
Instead, it is sufficient for the courts to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to
believe that the accused is involved in money laundering based on the material presented.
The court only needs to form a view on the probability of the accusations without requiring
the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage. It was held that this
preliminary assessment does not affect the final outcome at trial.
8. The Supreme Court further addressed concerns related to s. 4539 of the PMLA in Manish
Sisodia v. ED40, stating that the prolonged incarceration and delay in the trial should
influence the decision on bail. It emphasised that bail should not be denied as a form of
punishment and reiterated that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception.’
9. The defense submits that while the ED plays an important role in investigating economic
offenses, judicial oversight is necessary to prevent abuse of power. Expanding ED’s
investigative scope without adequate procedural safeguards raises serious constitutional
concerns. The Hon’ble Court must ensure that investigative mechanisms remain
transparent, proportionate, and do not infringe upon corporate rights.

6. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BNSS AFFECT THE PROCEDURAL

ASPECTS OF THE ED’S INVESTIGATION? ARE THERE SPECIFIC STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE FULFILLED BEFORE THE AGENCY
PROCEEDS WITH ARRESTS OR SEARCHES UNDER THIS FRAMEWORK?

1. The defense, TechCorp, submits that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has failed to adhere
to the procedural safeguards mandated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 (PMLA) 41 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)42. While financial

38
Available at: https://www.metalegal.in/post/breaking-the-chains-of-prolonged-detention-supreme-court-
reaffirms-bail-rights-in-economic-offences#viewer-1pigu2079 (last visited on February 14,2025)
39
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, s.45
40
Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3721
41
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
42
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.342

[24]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

crimes warrant stringent regulation, unfettered investigative powers without judicial

oversight create an environment ripe for procedural lapses and constitutional violations. The
defense argues that the ED’s actions particularly with respect to arrests, searches, seizures,
and procedural fairness have not conformed to statutory and constitutional mandates,
warranting judicial intervention.
2. TechCorp argues that under Section 6543 of BNSS, summons to corporate bodies must be
properly served and comply with due process requirements. ED did not follow this protocol
before freezing bank accounts or seizing corporate documents, its actions are procedurally
invalid.
3. Similarly, under Sections 72-8344, which deal with warrants and proclamations, ED must
ensure that any warrant issued follows the correct procedural steps, particularly when
dealing with financial offenses involving corporations. Section 10545 mandates that searches
and seizures must be recorded via audio-video means, ensuring transparency. The ED has
not furnished any recording of its search operations at TechCorp’s offices, this violates
procedural safeguards and weakens the legality of the evidence collected. Section 4746
mandates that the accused must be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to bail.
ED must comply strictly with this provision, failing which any arrest could be challenged.
The BNSS introduces stronger judicial safeguards, limiting the discretionary powers of
investigating agencies like the ED. Section 6247 mandates that all arrests, searches, and
seizures must strictly adhere to BNSS procedures, preventing arbitrary enforcement actions.
Section 23048 requires that copies of police reports and evidence be provided to the accused,
reinforcing the right to a fair defense. ED denied TechCorp access to key documents, it
violates this provision.
4. The SC in Tarsem Lal49 has also held that “If the accused appears before the special court
pursuant to a summons, it cannot be treated that he is in custody. Therefore, it is not
necessary for the accused to apply for bail,”. The judgment limits the power of arrest by the
Directorate of Enforcement (ED) after a special court takes cognisance of a case. 50 The

43
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.65
44
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.72-83
45
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.105
46
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.47
47
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.62
48
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.230
49
Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1021
50
Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ed-cant-arrest-accused-after-special-court-has-taken-
cognisance-of-complaint-sc/article68181485.ece (last visited on February 12,2025)

[25]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

Bench said the “ED would have to separately apply for the custody of a person once he
appears in court. The Central agency would have to show specific grounds that necessitated
custodial interrogation.”
5. The SC in the case of ED v.s Bibhu Prasad51 while considering the instant appeal by
Enforcement Directorate challenging Telangana High Court’s decision to quash complaint
under Section 44(1)(b), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the
defense’s for failure to obtain prior sanction under Section 197(1), CrPC held that
considering the object of Section 197(1), CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless
there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1). Hence, the
provisions of Section 197(1), CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of
PMLA. The SC explained and held that a provision of CrPC, made applicable to the PMLA
by the virtue of Section 65, will not be overridden by Section 71. Such provisions of CrPC
will continue to apply to the PMLA, notwithstanding Section 71. 52
6. The defense, TechCorp, submits that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has failed to comply
with the procedural safeguards mandated under the BNSS and PMLA, resulting in serious
violations of due process and constitutional rights. While the ED has broad investigative
powers, these must be exercised within the framework of procedural fairness and judicial
oversight to prevent arbitrary enforcement actions.
7. TechCorp contends that under BNSS Sections 47, 62, and 105, the ED was required to
ensure transparency in arrests, provide due notice, and record searches via audio-video
means—none of which were adhered to in this case. Additionally, BNSS Sections 72-83
impose strict procedural requirements for issuing warrants, which the ED failed to follow
before freezing bank accounts and seizing documents.

7. WHETHER THE DEFINITIONS AND PENALTIES OUTLINED IN THE BNSS

APPLY TO TECHCORP'S ALLEGED ACTIONS? CAN THE COMPANY AND ITS
EMPLOYEES BE EFFECTIVELY PROSECUTED UNDER THIS NEW LEGAL
FRAMEWORK?

1. It is submitted that The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a procedural
statute governing the manner in which criminal trials are conducted. Section 4(2) of BNSS

51
Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, (2025) 1 SCC 404
52
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/11/08/section-1971-crpc-applicability-complaint-under-pmla-sc-
legal-news/

[26]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

53
explicitly states that all offenses under any other law shall be tried according to BNSS
provisions, but “subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner”
of prosecution. BNSS does not define offenses. Section 2(o) of BNSS 54
states that an
“offense” means any act or omission made punishable “by any law for the time being in
force” . This means that BNSS merely provides procedural mechanisms for trials; it does
not determine what constitutes a crime.
2. It is submitted that in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 56955, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that procedural laws do not create new offenses or liabilities—they
merely regulate the prosecution of existing offenses under substantive statutes. Since
TechCorp’s alleged actions are not defined as offenses under BNSS, its definitions have no
bearing on this case.
3. The BNSS does not contain independent penal provisions for financial offenses. Sections
22-25 of BNSS lay out sentencing guidelines only for offenses that are already established
under a substantive criminal law. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi,
(1995) 4 SCC 19056, held that procedural laws cannot be used to impose penalties unless a
substantive law provides for them. BNSS does not impose any original penalties—it merely
regulates how penalties under substantive laws are executed. Chapter VIII (Sections 115-
122) of BNSS57, which deals with attachment and forfeiture, is procedural in nature. The
actual power to order attachment must come from a substantive law. Since TechCorp’s
alleged offenses do not arise under BNSS, its penalty provisions are irrelevant.
4. Section 342 of BNSS 58
provides for corporate criminal trials but does not independently
impose liability. This means that BNSS allows a company to be prosecuted if a substantive
law first defines the offense and establishes liability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Assistant Commissioner v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 40559, held that corporate
criminal liability must be explicitly defined in a substantive law before any penalties can be
imposed. Since BNSS does not define TechCorp’s conduct as a crime, it cannot be used as
a basis for prosecution.

53
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.4(2)
54
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.2(o)
55
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
56
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190
57
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.115-122
58
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.342
59
Assistant Commissioner v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 405

[27]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

5. It is submitted that the arrest and trial provisions under Sections 35-47 of BNSS 60
apply
only if a substantive offense has already been established. Since BNSS does not define
money laundering or financial fraud as offenses, TechCorp’s executives cannot be arrested
or prosecuted under its provisions. In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 60961, the
Supreme Court ruled that corporate executives cannot be held criminally liable unless the
substantive law specifically establishes their culpability. BNSS does not do so; therefore, it
cannot be used as a basis for prosecution. Section 65 of BNSS 62
merely provides the
procedure for serving summons on corporations. It does not define any independent liability
for company officials.
6. In light of the mentioned arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the definitions and
penalties under BNSS should not be applied to TechCorp’s actions, TechCorp and its
employees should not be prosecuted under BNSS, the Hon’ble Court hold that BNSS does
not create independent corporate liability or sentencing provisions for financial crimes.

60
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.35-47
61
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609
62
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s.65

[28]
 4TH JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

PRAYER

In light of the submissions made, facts explained, arguments given for issues raised and
authorities cited for substantiation, may it please this Hon’ble Court to

1. QUASH the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, as no scheduled offense has been conclusively established.

2. SET ASIDE the attachment and confiscation orders under Sections 5 and 8 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as they are arbitrary and violative of due
process.

3. DECLARE the actions of the Enforcement Directorate as unconstitutional and

violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Indistaan.

4. GRANT immediate access to the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and
all relevant materials to ensure a fair trial.

5. DISCHARGE TechCorp and its executives from all allegations of conspiracy and
money laundering for lack of substantive evidence.

AND/OR

Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most respectfully submitted

Counsels for the Defense

[29]