Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002: A Complete Guide

Money laundering weakens honest businesses and drains public trust. Therefore, India enacted a tough statute to fight it. The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 sits at the heart of that effort. This guide explains the law in plain words. Moreover, it covers offences, punishment, arrest, bail, and compliance duties.

The article draws on the official text, Supreme Court rulings, and regulator material. Additionally, it tracks developments up to September 2026. Students, founders, bankers, and accused persons will find clear answers here. Finally, remember that this guide shares general information and not legal advice.

What Is the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002?

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 is India’s main law against money laundering. Parliament enacted it to prevent laundering, to confiscate tainted property, and to punish offenders. Furthermore, the statute extends to the whole of India. Its title carries a hyphen, yet many sources drop it in daily use.

Historically, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 replaced a patchwork of narrower drug and customs laws. As a result, it created a single framework for tracing, freezing, and confiscating criminal wealth. Notably, the statute also builds its own investigative machinery. Because of this design, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 works alongside criminal, tax, and securities laws rather than replacing them.

Quick Facts About PMLA

• Royal assent: 17 January 2003.
• Commencement: 1 July 2005.
• Extent: the whole of India.
• Administering ministry: Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
• Chief enforcer: the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Why Readers Look for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 Bare Act

Many readers search for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 bare act to check the exact wording. Fortunately, the official text is free online. Nevertheless, a plain guide helps first-time readers navigate its roughly seventy-five sections. Hence, this article links to the source text in the References.

History of PMLA: From UN Declarations to Indian Law

Global alarm over drug money started the story. In 1990, the UN General Assembly adopted a Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action. Later, a special session in June 1998 urged every state to enact national laws. Consequently, India introduced a money-laundering Bill on 4 August 1998.

The President gave assent on 17 January 2003. However, the law took effect only on 1 July 2005, once the Rules were notified. Meanwhile, India joined the Financial Action Task Force as a full member in 2010. That step raised pressure for stronger provisions.

Over the years, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 has grown from a modest drug-money law into a wide financial-crime code. Indeed, each amendment responded to a global standard or a court ruling. Likewise, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 now reflects commitments that India made to the international community. For that reason, readers should treat its history as a guide to its present shape.

Key Amendments Over Time

Parliament has amended the law several times. First, the 2005 amendment refined early gaps. Next, the 2009 amendment added offences to the Schedule and covered cross-border conduct. Then the 2012 amendment widened the offence and took effect in February 2013. Later, the Finance Acts of 2018 and 2019 reshaped bail and clarified key definitions. Finally, executive notifications in 2023 pulled new sectors into the compliance net.

Objectives and Scope of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002

The Act pursues three goals. First, it aims to prevent and control money laundering. Second, it allows the State to seize and confiscate property derived from laundered money. Third, it covers every issue connected with the subject. Together, these aims explain why the law feels so broad.

In practice, these objectives guide how officers use the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002. For example, prevention drives the reporting duties on banks. Meanwhile, confiscation drives property action against suspects. Beyond that, deterrence explains the stiff jail terms. Overall, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 treats the money trail as seriously as the crime itself.

Territorial and Subject Reach

The statute applies across India. Additionally, it reaches cross-border cases. For instance, it covers a person who remits proceeds of a foreign offence to India. Likewise, it covers proceeds of an Indian scheduled offence sent abroad. Therefore, international laundering routes fall within its scope.

The Schedule of Predicate Offences

The Schedule lists the offences that generate “proceeds of crime.” Examples include offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Similarly, it lists offences under the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Hence, no money-laundering case can stand without a scheduled offence behind it.

Key Definitions in the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002

Definitions in Section 2 drive the entire law. Therefore, a careful reader must master them first. Otherwise, later provisions will confuse even seasoned lawyers.

Courts also read these definitions closely. For instance, disputes often turn on whether property really links to a scheduled offence. Likewise, the meaning of a reporting entity decides who must file reports. Hence, lawyers who advise on the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 start every opinion with Section 2.

Proceeds of Crime

“Proceeds of crime” means property obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity linked to a scheduled offence. It also covers the value of such property. Moreover, a 2019 explanation clarified that the term reaches property connected with scheduled criminal activity. Still, the Supreme Court held that property counts only when it links to a scheduled offence.

Reporting Entity and Designated Business

A “reporting entity” includes banks, financial institutions, intermediaries, and persons carrying on a designated business or profession. Consequently, casinos, real estate agents, and dealers in precious metals may fall within the net. Meanwhile, the Finance Ministry may notify more activities. In fact, it did exactly that in 2023.

Other Core Terms

Additionally, the Act defines “property,” “beneficial owner,” “client,” and “scheduled offence.” Each term shapes who faces liability. Thus, a precise reading avoids costly mistakes.

What Counts as Money Laundering Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002? Section 3 Explained

Section 3 creates the offence. In simple words, anyone who attempts, assists, or knowingly takes part in any process connected with proceeds of crime commits the offence. The process may involve concealment, possession, acquisition, or use. Likewise, projecting tainted money as clean also qualifies.

Notably, the mental element matters. The word “knowingly” appears in the text, so innocent recipients of tainted funds have a defence in principle. However, courts examine the surrounding facts closely. Consequently, an accused must show a genuine lack of knowledge. Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002, intent and conduct together decide the outcome.

Continuing Offence

A 2019 explanation states that the offence continues as long as a person enjoys the proceeds. Consequently, even a person who received tainted property years ago may face action. Yet the Supreme Court, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, tied the offence to the scheduled offence. Accordingly, no prosecution survives if the scheduled offence ends in acquittal or quashing.

The Three Classic Stages

Experts describe laundering in three stages. First, placement puts dirty cash into the system. Second, layering hides its origin through complex transfers. Third, integration returns the money as apparently clean wealth. Thus, the statute targets each stage.

Punishment Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002: Section 4

Section 4 fixes the penalty for money laundering. The court may impose rigorous imprisonment of at least three years. That term may extend to seven years. In addition, the court must impose a fine. The Act sets no upper limit on that fine.

Courts weigh the seriousness of the offence when they fix a sentence. Moreover, confiscation of property often hurts a convict more than the jail term. Indeed, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 treats punishment and asset recovery as parallel tracks. Thus, a convict may lose both liberty and wealth. Anyone reading the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 bare act should study Section 4 with the Schedule side by side.

Higher Sentence for Drug Cases

However, a stricter rule applies to narcotics. Where the proceeds relate to specified offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the term may reach ten years. Therefore, drug-linked laundering attracts the heaviest custodial sentence.

Other Offences Under the Act

Furthermore, false information carries separate liability. Similarly, a company and its officers may face prosecution when the company commits the offence. Consequently, directors cannot assume that the corporate veil protects them.

Authorities Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002: ED, FIU-IND, and Courts

Several bodies share the work of enforcement. Each one plays a distinct role. Understanding them helps readers know whom to approach.

In addition, the Act empowers the Central Government to appoint authorities through Sections 48 and 49. These include Directors, Additional Directors, Joint Directors, Deputy Directors, and Assistant Directors. Because each rank holds different powers, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 builds a clear chain of command. Therefore, an order signed by an unauthorised officer can face a strong challenge.

Directorate of Enforcement

The ED investigates money-laundering offences. It began in 1956 as an enforcement unit and now works under the Department of Revenue. Moreover, its officers hold powers of survey, search, seizure, arrest, and provisional attachment.

Financial Intelligence Unit-India

The Government set up FIU-IND on 18 November 2004. It receives and analyses suspicious financial data. Additionally, it reports directly to the Economic Intelligence Council headed by the Finance Minister. Thus, it acts as the country’s intelligence hub for financial crime.

Adjudicating Authority, Tribunal, and Special Courts

The Adjudicating Authority decides whether attachments should continue. Next, the Appellate Tribunal hears appeals against its orders. Finally, Special Courts try the offence itself. Consequently, the Act separates civil-style property proceedings from criminal trial.

Attachment and Confiscation of Property

Property action forms the core of the regime. The State first freezes suspect assets. Then it seeks confiscation after a fair hearing. Hence, understanding the sequence is vital for anyone facing an order.

Notably, attachment does not require a conviction. Instead, it depends on the link between property and a scheduled offence. As a result, many disputes focus on that link. Additionally, the Supreme Court has said that the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 contains adequate safeguards for attachment. Consequently, an affected owner must engage early and file a strong reply.

Provisional Attachment Under Section 5

An authorised officer may attach property provisionally. However, the officer must hold material giving reason to believe that the property is proceeds of crime. Moreover, that belief must be recorded in writing. Also, the property must be at risk of concealment or transfer. The order lasts up to 180 days.

Adjudication and Confiscation

After attachment, the officer files a complaint with the Adjudicating Authority. Then the authority issues a notice and hears the affected person. Subsequently, it confirms or rejects the attachment. If the Special Court later finds an offence, the property may be confiscated and vested in the Central Government. Meanwhile, genuine claimants may seek restoration.

Search, Seizure, and Arrest Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002

The law gives officers wide investigative powers. Nonetheless, it wraps those powers in procedural safeguards. Courts have repeatedly enforced them.

Additionally, courts test each power against constitutional guarantees. For example, Article 21 protects life and liberty, while Article 22 protects arrested persons. Accordingly, any breach of procedure can invalidate an arrest. Anyone studying the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 bare act should read Sections 16 to 19 together with Section 50 for a full picture.

Search and Seizure

Officers may survey premises and conduct searches under Sections 16 to 18. Before a search, the officer must have recorded reasons to believe an offence has occurred. Additionally, the search needs proper authorisation from a senior officer. Afterwards, the officer may seize records and property.

Arrest Under Section 19

Section 19 allows arrest by senior officers when material gives reason to believe a person is guilty. The officer must record reasons in writing. Furthermore, the officer must inform the person of the grounds of arrest. Finally, the officer must produce the person before a Special Court within twenty-four hours.

Summons and Statements Under Section 50

The ED may summon any person to give evidence or produce documents. Notably, the Supreme Court held that ED officers are not police officers. Consequently, statements under Section 50 remain admissible in evidence. Therefore, a summoned person must speak with great care.

Bail Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002: Section 45 Twin Conditions

Bail sits at the center of most disputes. Section 45 sets two tests. First, the Public Prosecutor must get a chance to oppose the plea. Second, the court must find reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Additionally, the court must believe that the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

In practice, bail hearings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 take a long time. Both sides argue at length on the material collected. Therefore, careful drafting of the bail application matters. Additionally, the accused should highlight delay, health, and the weak link to any scheduled offence. Eventually, the court weighs these facts against the twin tests.

Exceptions and Legal History

The proviso softens the rule for certain groups. For example, a person under sixteen, a woman, or a sick or infirm person may receive bail more easily. Meanwhile, the history is dramatic. In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down the twin conditions in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Soon after, Parliament restored them through the Finance Act 2018. Later, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld the revised text.

Courts Balance Liberty and Strictness

Recent orders show a more liberty-focused approach. For instance, in January 2026, a Supreme Court bench granted bail to a former corporate promoter despite huge alleged sums. Thus, delay and long custody now weigh heavily in bail decisions.

Burden of Proof Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002: Section 24

Section 24 shifts the burden of proof. Once the authority charges a person with the offence, the court presumes the proceeds are involved in money laundering. Accordingly, the accused must prove otherwise. This rule departs from the usual criminal presumption of innocence.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 places this burden only after the authority establishes a basic case. Thus, the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts. Subsequently, the accused steps in with evidence of a lawful source. Importantly, the Supreme Court upheld this design in 2022, although a review is now pending.

Why the Provision Is Controversial

Critics argue that the reverse burden weakens fair trial rights. Conversely, the Government argues that laundering is hard to prove without such a rule. Indeed, launderers hide behind layered structures. Nevertheless, review petitions now question this very issue, as later sections explain.

Related Presumptions

Similarly, Section 23 presumes that interconnected transactions form part of one scheme. Thus, an accused must explain each link. Practically, defence lawyers focus on documents that show a clean, legal source of funds.

Additionally, courts expect the accused to lead credible evidence. Bank statements, sale deeds, tax returns, and gift records carry weight. Conversely, vague claims rarely succeed. Hence, early preparation of a documentary trail often decides the outcome.

Landmark Judgments on the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002

Case law now defines how the statute works. Therefore, no guide is complete without the leading rulings.

These cases share one theme. Each one tests how far the State may go before it must respect individual rights. Furthermore, the rulings guide trial courts across the country. Consequently, lawyers cite them in almost every bail plea, quashing petition, and property dispute.

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022)

On 27 July 2022, a three-judge bench upheld Sections 3, 5, 17, 19, 45, and 50. Moreover, it held that authorities cannot prosecute anyone on the assumption that a scheduled offence exists. The Court also treated the Enforcement Case Information Report as an internal document, not an FIR. As a result, the ED need not supply it in every case.

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023)

In October 2023, the Supreme Court held that the ED must furnish written grounds of arrest. Otherwise, the arrest is unlawful. Later, in Ram Kishor Arora, the Court clarified that written communication within twenty-four hours suffices when the arrest itself follows oral disclosure.

Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024)

In May 2024, the Court ruled that the ED cannot use Section 19 to arrest an accused after a Special Court takes cognizance. Additionally, the twin conditions do not apply when the accused appears on a summons. Consequently, the ruling eased bail for many defendants.

Compliance Duties Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002

Banks and other reporting entities carry heavy duties. Chapter IV of the Act and the PML Rules govern them. Therefore, every regulated business must build a real compliance system.

Regulators reinforce these duties through their own directions. For instance, the RBI and SEBI issue KYC and anti-money-laundering circulars for their regulated entities. Likewise, insurance and payment sector regulators follow the same pattern. Thus, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 operates alongside sector-specific rules. Compliance teams must track both layers.

Core Obligations

Reporting entities must verify client identity and identify beneficial owners. Additionally, they must maintain transaction records for the prescribed period, which is generally five years. Moreover, each entity must appoint a Principal Officer and a Designated Director. Finally, the entity must tell FIU-IND their names and addresses.

Reports to File

Entities file several reports with FIU-IND. Cash Transaction Reports cover cash dealings above ten lakh rupees in a month. Suspicious Transaction Reports apply regardless of amount. Besides these, counterfeit currency reports, non-profit transaction reports, and cross-border wire transfer reports also exist. Consequently, timely filing avoids penalties.

In addition, entities must keep customer files current. Periodic review of high-risk clients remains essential. Likewise, staff must avoid tipping off a customer about a report. Thus, confidentiality forms part of good compliance practice.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 and Virtual Digital Assets

On 7 March 2023, the Finance Ministry issued a landmark notification. It brought crypto-related activities under the Act. Covered activities include exchange between virtual digital assets and fiat currency, and exchange between different virtual assets. Similarly, transfer, safekeeping, administration, and participation in an issuer’s offer also qualify.

This step reflects global trends. Crypto assets can move across borders in seconds, so regulators want visibility. Similarly, the FATF standards call for virtual asset service providers to meet anti-money-laundering rules. Accordingly, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 now covers a fast-growing technology sector. Startups in this space must therefore build compliance into their product design.

What Service Providers Must Do

Therefore, virtual asset service providers are reporting entities. They must complete client due diligence, verify beneficial owners, and keep records. Additionally, they must report suspicious activity to FIU-IND. Notably, the ED may investigate any breach.

Moreover, exchanges and wallet providers must screen transactions for red flags. For example, sudden bursts of transfers or use of privacy tools can raise concern. Consequently, many platforms now use blockchain analytics tools for monitoring.

Other Professions Brought In

Meanwhile, the Government has widened the net further. In May 2023, it notified certain financial transactions carried out by chartered accountants, company secretaries, and cost accountants. Thus, professionals must now check their own compliance posture.

Penalties, Corporate Liability, and Appeals Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002

Non-compliance carries real consequences. Hence, businesses should treat the rules as core risk management.

Additionally, the Act deals with false or misleading information. Section 63 punishes such conduct with imprisonment and a fine. Meanwhile, tipping off and data misuse can trigger separate consequences. Hence, staff training on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 bare act and its rules reduces risk. Prudent boards also review these duties every quarter.

Penalty for Reporting Failures

Under Section 13, the Director of FIU-IND may fine a reporting entity for each failure. The fine ranges from ten thousand rupees to one lakh rupees per lapse. In addition, the Director may issue warnings or direct corrective action. Past orders against banks show that FIU-IND uses this power.

Liability of Companies and Officers

Section 70 makes companies liable for offences. Furthermore, persons in charge of the business may also face prosecution. However, an officer can escape liability by proving lack of knowledge or due diligence. Therefore, documented controls protect directors.

Appeal Routes

Aggrieved parties may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within forty-five days of an order. Moreover, further appeal lies to the High Court on a question of law. Consequently, a structured remedy exists at every stage.

Latest Developments in the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 for 2026

The law continues to evolve. Above all, the Supreme Court is revisiting its own 2022 ruling. On 20 August 2026, it reconstituted the bench that will hear review petitions in the Vijay Madanlal matter. The bench comprises the Chief Justice and two other judges. Petitioners challenge the reverse burden, the ECIR rule, and the twin bail conditions.

These hearings matter for everyone. If the Court narrows the reverse burden or the bail test, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 will operate very differently. On the other hand, if it upholds the 2022 verdict, current practice will continue. Therefore, practitioners track every listing closely. Meanwhile, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 remains fully in force.

Single-Member Adjudicating Authority

Additionally, the Court has reportedly reserved judgment on whether the Adjudicating Authority can sit as a single member. During hearings, the bench questioned how one member could review thousands of cases within 180 days. Meanwhile, counsel cited ED figures suggesting that only sixty of 8,851 cases reached trial.

FATF Assessment

Globally, the picture looks positive. In its 2024 report, the FATF found that India had achieved a high level of technical compliance. Nevertheless, it urged the country to complete more trials and impose proper sanctions. Thus, both praise and pressure shape reform.

Practical Tips for Complying With the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002

Knowledge becomes power only when applied. Therefore, consider these steps.

Also, keep a habit of documenting income sources, gifts, and large transfers. Banks may question unusual deposits under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002, and clear paperwork helps. Similarly, avoid lending your account to others. Doing so can drag you into a laundering inquiry. In short, prevention costs far less than defence.

If You Receive an ED Summons

First, read the summons carefully. Then, consult a qualified criminal lawyer before appearing. Next, gather documents that prove the source of your funds. Also, remember that statements under Section 50 can serve as evidence. Finally, never give false information, because separate penalties apply.

If You Run a Regulated Business

Begin with a written risk assessment. Then, adopt a clear KYC policy and train staff regularly. Moreover, monitor transactions for unusual patterns. Additionally, file suspicious transaction reports promptly. Lastly, audit the system every year.

Beyond these basics, involve senior management. Boards that own the risk usually fund better tools and hire capable officers. Furthermore, run mock drills that test how staff escalate red flags. Ultimately, a living compliance culture beats a paper policy every time.

Conclusion

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 remains one of India’s most powerful financial laws. It gives agencies strong tools, yet courts keep insisting on fairness. Consequently, the law changes with every major judgment. Readers should follow the pending review petitions closely. Above all, businesses and individuals should act early, keep clean records, and seek expert advice. That approach protects both compliance and liberty.

In short, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 rewards those who understand it. Whenever you need the exact wording, consult the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 bare act from a trusted publisher or the official text listed below. Finally, revisit this guide as the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, consult a qualified advocate for advice on any specific case, because facts and timing change outcomes.

References

1. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 (official text, ICSI): https://www.icsi.edu/media/portals/86/bare%20acts/The%20Prevention%20of%20Money-laudering%20Act,%202002.pdf
2. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 (text with commentary, AMLegals): https://amlegals.com/indian-law-firm/prevention-money-laundering-act-2002/
3. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 (text, INTOSAI WGFACML): https://wgfacml.intosaicommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/INDIA.pdf
4. FIU-IND, Brochure on Financial Intelligence Unit-India: https://fiuindia.gov.in/pdfs/downloads/Brochures%20on%20FIU.pdf
5. SEBI, PMLA reporting guidance for intermediaries: https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/commondocs/str_h.html
6. RBI, PMLA Rules and reporting to FIU-India: https://website.rbi.org.in/web/rbi/-/notifications/ucbs-pmla-2002-reporting-to-fiu-india-reporting-format-under-project-finnet-6809
7. Supreme Court judgment, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India: https://www.supremecourtcases.com/vijay-madanlal-choudhary-and-others-v-union-of-india-and-others/
8. LiveLaw, Summary of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment: https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-courts-pmla-judgement-vijay-madanlal-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-204937
9. AZB & Partners, SC upholds constitutionality of PMLA provisions: https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/sc-upholds-constitutionality-of-provisions-of-prevention-of-money-laundering-act-2002/
10. SCC Online, Review petition on the PMLA verdict: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/26/pmla-verdict-review-petition-two-issues-require-reconsideration-karti-chidambaram-supreme-court-legal-updates-research-news/
11. Bar and Bench, PMLA review petitions before a new bench: https://www.barandbench.com/news/pmla-verdict-review-petitions-to-be-heard-by-new-bench-of-supreme-court
12. India Legal, PMLA review and the Vijay Madanlal ruling: https://indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/pmla-review-supreme-court-constitution-bench-vijay-madanlal-choudhary-ruling/
13. Law Trend, Single-member Adjudicating Authority hearing: https://lawtrend.in/supreme-court-questions-asset-attachments-by-single-member-pmla-authority-reserves-verdict/
14. LiveLaw, Bail under Section 45 and the 2026 Supreme Court approach: https://www.livelaw.in/articles/pmla-procrastination-constitutional-liberty-529401
15. IndiaCorpLaw, Grounds of arrest under Section 19: https://indiacorplaw.in/2024/02/03/grounds-of-arrest-navigating-section-19-of-the-pmla/
16. ITAT Online, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India: https://itatonline.org/digest/verdicts/pankaj-bansal-vs-union-of-india-supreme-court/
17. Mondaq (JSA), Notification on virtual digital assets: https://mondaq.com/india/money-laundering/1304532/notification-under-the-prevention-of-money-laundering-act-2002-regulating-virtual-digital-assets
18. AZB & Partners, Compliance obligations for virtual digital assets: https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/the-indian-anti-money-laundering-regime-new-compliance-obligations-around-virtual-digital-assets/
19. FATF, Mutual Evaluation Report of India 2024: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/fatf-gafi/en/publications/Mutualevaluations/India-MER-2024.html
20. IDSA, India’s Mutual Evaluation Report 2024: https://www.idsa.in/publisher/issuebrief/indias-mutual-evaluation-report-2024-assessment-and-implications