Criminal Liability Of Banks In Money Laundering Cases
🔹 I. Concept Overview: Criminal Liability of Banks in Money Laundering
1. What is Money Laundering?
Money laundering is the process by which individuals or entities disguise the illicit origin of money obtained from criminal activities (like drug trafficking, corruption, fraud, or terrorism financing) to make it appear legitimate.
In India, it is primarily governed by:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines on Know Your Customer (KYC)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 120B, 420, etc.)
Banking Regulation Act, 1949
2. Criminal Liability of Banks
Banks can be held criminally liable when:
They knowingly assist in laundering money.
They fail to perform due diligence (KYC norms, suspicious transaction reporting).
Their officers are involved or negligent in facilitating the laundering process.
Under PMLA, both the institution and its responsible officers can be prosecuted if they are involved directly or indirectly.
🔹 II. Legal Framework & Key Principles
Section 3, PMLA – Defines money laundering: anyone directly or indirectly involved in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime.
Section 4, PMLA – Punishment: imprisonment up to 7 years (10 years for narcotics cases) and fine.
Section 70, PMLA – Corporate liability: if the offence is committed by a company, every person in charge at the time is deemed guilty unless they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence.
Section 120B, IPC – Criminal conspiracy.
RBI Master Circular on KYC/AML (Anti-Money Laundering) – Non-compliance can invite penal actions.
🔹 III. Important Case Laws (Detailed Explanation)
1. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 530
Facts:
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) charged Standard Chartered Bank for violating provisions of FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) by facilitating illegal remittances.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that a company can be prosecuted and convicted for offences that require mens rea (criminal intent), even though it cannot be imprisoned. Monetary penalties and other sanctions can be imposed.
Relevance:
This case established that banks and corporations can be criminally liable for offences involving money laundering, and penalties are not limited to individuals.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Bank (1991) Cri LJ 1253 (Bom.)
Facts:
An employee of the bank colluded with outsiders to withdraw large sums fraudulently. The bank claimed it had no role.
Held:
The court held that if the bank fails to maintain due diligence and internal controls, it can be vicariously liable for acts of its officers.
Relevance:
Banks must ensure robust anti-laundering checks; negligence or failure to supervise can attract criminal liability.
3. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
ICICI Bank was accused of not conducting proper KYC verification before facilitating transactions involving shell companies.
Held:
The Supreme Court observed that while civil liability primarily attached to the bank, failure to follow regulatory norms (KYC/AML) could also give rise to criminal proceedings if linked to proceeds of crime.
Relevance:
Negligence in AML compliance can trigger PMLA investigation and potential criminal liability if it aids money laundering.
4. Punjab National Bank v. Enforcement Directorate (2019, PMLA Appellate Tribunal)
Facts:
Following the Nirav Modi–PNB scam, the bank was scrutinized under PMLA for failing to detect fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) used to launder money abroad.
Held:
The tribunal held that while the primary culprits were individuals, the bank’s systemic failure and non-compliance with AML obligations were significant. Regulatory penalties were upheld, and officers were investigated under PMLA.
Relevance:
A landmark case showing that banks can face regulatory and quasi-criminal consequences when their negligence facilitates laundering.
5. HSBC Bank Case (2012, U.S. Department of Justice but relevant in India for principle)
Facts:
HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for drug cartels and sanctioned countries. The bank paid a USD 1.9 billion fine.
Held:
The case established that corporate entities, including banks, can face criminal prosecution for money laundering globally, and regulatory bodies can impose severe penalties even without imprisonment.
Relevance (for Indian context):
Indian authorities (ED, RBI) often cite HSBC-type cases to emphasize “zero tolerance” toward banks aiding or ignoring laundering activities.
6. Axis Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7854)
Facts:
ED froze bank accounts under PMLA, alleging that Axis Bank had allowed laundering of crime proceeds through its accounts.
Held:
Delhi High Court upheld ED’s power to freeze accounts but observed that mere banking relationships without evidence of knowledge or involvement do not make the bank criminally liable.
Relevance:
Established that mens rea (knowledge) is key — banks aren’t automatically criminally liable unless they knowingly aid laundering.
7. Bank of India v. ADJ, Allahabad (2016)
Facts:
A branch manager was found helping a company divert funds received under government contracts through fictitious accounts.
Held:
The court held the manager criminally liable under IPC and PMLA. The bank, though not directly charged, faced regulatory censure for failure of supervision.
Relevance:
Illustrates the individual liability of officers and the institutional responsibility to ensure integrity.
🔹 IV. Key Takeaways
Corporate Liability:
Banks can be held liable for acts done by employees or management if connected with money laundering (Section 70, PMLA).
Individual Liability:
Officers (Managers, Compliance Heads) are liable if they were aware of or participated in the laundering process.
Due Diligence Defence:
Banks can avoid liability by showing they exercised due diligence and complied with KYC, AML norms.
Regulatory and Criminal Actions:
RBI may impose monetary penalties, while the Enforcement Directorate can prosecute under PMLA.
Mens Rea Requirement:
Actual knowledge or wilful blindness must be shown to establish criminal liability.
🔹 V. Conclusion
Banks are the first line of defence in the fight against money laundering. Under PMLA and judicial interpretation, ignorance is no defence — failure to follow KYC and AML norms can result in both criminal and regulatory liability.
However, courts have consistently balanced this by requiring evidence of knowledge or gross negligence before imposing criminal penalties.
RELATED Blog
comments