Economic offences like money laundering a real threat with advancements in AI: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the country's financial system with the advancements in technology including Artificial Intelligence [Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement]..A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi added that it has become a great challenge for investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions and the role of the persons involved in them."Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law," said the top court..The Court, while referring to various judgments passed by it in the past, noted that the economic offences have been held to constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously, the Court opined.It added they need to be considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole," the Court remarked..The Court made the observations while dismissing the bail plea moved by Shakti Bhog Foods’ former Vice President (Purchases) Tarun Kumar in a money laundering case against the company. While doing so, the Court also underscored that when the detention of accused is continued, the courts are expected to conclude the trial within a reasonable time to ensure upholding of the right to speedy trial.His counsel had submitted that a similarly placed co-accused Raman Bhuraria was granted bail by the Delhi High Court. However, the top court said the bail order has already been challenged..It also held that a person accused of a crime cannot seek bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused in the case, if such co-accused was incorrectly granted bail without legal justification.A court is required to look into the accused's role when principle of parity is invoked by the accused for seeking bail, the top court clarified.While observing that parity is not the law, the Court said the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court cannot be invoked for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similar wrong order..Observing that the principle of parity is based on Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court said,“Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.”Since the order granting bail to Bhuraria is under consideration before a coordinate bench of the top court, the bench said it would not be appropriate for it to make any observation with regard to it..On the argument against petitioner’s indefinite incarceration despite completion of probe against him, the Court said he has not been able to overcome the stringent conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA.The Court added that the burden of proof lies on the accused to show that he was not prima facie guilty of such offence, for the purpose of the condition under Section 45.“Of course, such discharge of burden could be on the probabilities, nonetheless in the instant case there being sufficient material on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the said Act, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant,” the Court concluded..Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra with Advocates Malak Manish Bhatt, Neeha Nagpal, Samridhi, Kartikeye Dang, Rudraditya Khare and Sahir Seth represented the petitioner. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju with Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar and Zoheb Hussain represented the Enforcement Directorate [Read Judgment]