Case Studies On Money Laundering
Case Studies on Money Laundering
Money laundering is the process of converting illegally obtained funds into “clean” money. Laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 in India, the Bank Secrecy Act in the U.S., and international frameworks such as FATF guidelines govern anti-money laundering measures. Courts have consistently interpreted these laws to prosecute illicit financial activities.
1. Enforcement Directorate v. Vijay Mallya (India, 2019)
Facts:
Vijay Mallya, the liquor tycoon, defaulted on loans exceeding ₹9,000 crore from Indian banks. The ED filed a case under the PMLA alleging money laundering.
Issue:
Whether diversion of loan funds and default constitute money laundering under PMLA.
Decision:
The court held that loan default with misappropriation or diversion of funds qualifies as a predicate offense for money laundering.
Mallya was declared a fugitive economic offender, and his assets were attached.
Impact:
Established that loan fraud and financial default with criminal intent are actionable under money laundering statutes.
Reinforced the ability of ED to attach assets of economic offenders.
2. State Bank of India v. Ramesh Kumar (India, 2018)
Facts:
Accused created fictitious companies to siphon funds from banks.
Issue:
Whether creating shell companies to channel money violates PMLA.
Decision:
Convicted under PMLA Sections 3 & 4, which criminalize laundering of proceeds from specified offenses.
Courts recognized shell companies as a common tool for laundering money.
Impact:
Clarified judicial interpretation that corporate fraud linked to money flow is money laundering.
Strengthened the linkage between predicate offenses (fraud, embezzlement) and laundering.
3. U.S. v. Allen Stanford (2009, U.S.)
Facts:
Allen Stanford ran a $7 billion Ponzi scheme through offshore banks.
Issue:
Whether offshore bank transfers and investment schemes to hide illicit gains constitute money laundering.
Decision:
Convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1956 (money laundering) and wire fraud statutes.
Sentenced to 110 years in prison.
Impact:
Showed the use of international financial networks for laundering illicit funds.
Reinforced that money laundering laws extend to offshore transactions and complex financial schemes.
4. Union Bank of India v. ED (2016, India)
Facts:
The bank filed a case against a corporate entity for diverting loan funds to other accounts and failing to repay.
Issue:
Whether loan diversion with intent to evade repayment amounts to money laundering.
Decision:
ED attached properties under PMLA Section 5.
Court upheld that diversion of funds constitutes proceeds of crime, qualifying for anti-money laundering provisions.
Impact:
Reinforced the concept of “proceeds of crime” under PMLA.
Showed proactive asset attachment as a tool to curb laundering.
5. HSBC Money Laundering Scandal (U.S./UK, 2012)
Facts:
HSBC was found to have laundered billions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels.
Issue:
Whether negligence and failure in anti-money laundering (AML) compliance constitute criminal liability.
Decision:
HSBC entered a deferred prosecution agreement.
Paid fines exceeding $1.9 billion and strengthened internal AML controls.
Impact:
Highlighted corporate responsibility in AML compliance.
Demonstrated that both direct laundering and failure to implement AML systems can trigger legal action.
6. Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi Case (India, 2018–2020)
Facts:
Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi allegedly defrauded Punjab National Bank of over ₹13,000 crore and transferred funds abroad.
Issue:
Whether fraudulent bank transactions, international fund transfers, and shell companies constitute money laundering.
Decision:
ED attached properties under PMLA.
Courts emphasized that foreign remittance and layering of funds through multiple jurisdictions is money laundering.
Impact:
Demonstrated cross-border nature of money laundering.
Reinforced judicial support for asset attachment, extradition, and international cooperation.
7. U.S. v. Joseph “Joe” Bruno (2010, U.S.)
Facts:
Joseph Bruno, a businessman, used complex transactions and offshore accounts to hide proceeds of bribery and fraud.
Issue:
Whether layering and transferring illicit funds through multiple accounts violates U.S. money laundering statutes.
Decision:
Convicted under CFA and money laundering laws.
Court emphasized the “layering” step as a key element of money laundering.
Impact:
Highlighted judicial interpretation that multiple financial layers designed to conceal origins are actionable.
Strengthened U.S. jurisprudence on complex money laundering schemes.
Key Judicial Principles from Case Studies
Predicate Offense Principle:
Money laundering prosecution requires an underlying criminal activity (fraud, bribery, Ponzi schemes).
Asset Attachment:
Courts consistently support attaching assets to prevent dissipation of illicit funds.
Corporate Responsibility:
Banks and financial institutions can be held liable for failing AML compliance (HSBC case).
Cross-Border Enforcement:
International cooperation is essential in modern money laundering cases (Nirav Modi, Allen Stanford).
Techniques Recognized:
Use of shell companies, offshore accounts, complex layering, and digital remittance are interpreted as laundering methods.
RELATED Blog
comments