laundry dispute

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the constitutional validity of India’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act, dismissing the plea of ​​the petitioners that it is too harsh. This would satisfy the Enforcement Directorate, its main instigator, that the arrests made without making the accused aware of the exact charges, confiscation of property and a vertical bar for bail were all deemed fit. A 2018 amendment to this 2002 law had strengthened a double trial for bail, requiring judges to first hear public prosecutors and free defendants if they are convinced they are not guilty. Prima facie, the SC said, this can be done on the basis of wide possibilities on hard evidence. To justify the implied burden of proof borne by the accusers, the Center argued that money laundering is a serious offense – one with potential terror links. While this may be so, the gravity of a crime should reduce the scope for false-crime errors by considering the severity of the sentence. Presumption of innocence should always prevail until proven innocent. How heinous the alleged rapes are, it has nothing to do with this basic principle of justice. Anyone who deals with money should get this assurance.