Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to consider the effect of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 on the property rights of third parties, by evaluating whether the interpretation of the scheme of the PMLA, 2002 results in a deprivation of rights, by virtue of the provision for the provisional attachment of property.[AQ3] In doing so, this paper attempts to consider two sub-categories of third parties that stand affected by §5 of the PMLA, 2002.

Design/methodology/approach

Primarily the authors analyse diverging judgements and case law across various high courts to evaluate the position of law with regards to attachment of property. To reach a precise legal conclusion, the authors consider the composite scheme of the PMLA, 2002 in their analysis.

Findings

It has been concluded that there is a clear lack of judicial cohesion in the interpretation of the PMLA, 2002, and in the absence of a judgement by the Supreme Court of India, enforcement authorities have failed to correctly identify the boundaries of the offence of money laundering, resulting in a dangerous deprivation of rights.

Originality/value

This paper fills a vacuum of detailed scholarship on anti-money laundering provisions in India, while also being contemporaneously relevant, as it considers the effects of the PMLA, 2002 on bona fide economic transactions and secured creditors.

中文翻译：

---

第三方和债权人权利：根据 2002 年印度 PMLA §5 的临时扣押

目的

本文的目的是通过评估对 2002 年 PMLA 计划的解释是否导致权利被剥夺，来考虑 2002 年《防止洗钱法》（PMLA）对第三方财产权的影响， [AQ3] 在此过程中，本文试图考虑受 2002 年 PMLA §5 影响的第三方的两个子类别。

设计/方法/方法

作者主要分析不同高等法院的不同判决和判例法，以评估法律在财产扣押方面的立场。为了得出准确的法律结论，作者在分析中考虑了 2002 年 PMLA 的复合方案。

发现

得出的结论是，对 2002 年 PMLA 的解释明显缺乏司法衔接，并且在印度最高法院未作出判决的情况下，执法当局未能正确确定金钱犯罪的界限洗钱，导致危险的权利剥夺。

原创性/价值

本文填补了印度反洗钱条款详细研究的空白，同时也具有相关性，因为它考虑了 2002 年 PMLA 对善意经济交易和有担保债权人的影响。