Terrorism Financing And Support Offences
1. Meaning of Terrorism Financing
Terrorism financing refers to the collection, provision, or use of funds (money, assets, or resources) with the intent to support terrorism. This includes:
Direct funding of terrorist acts.
Indirect funding (logistics, communication, travel, safe houses).
Material support (weapons, training, equipment).
Facilitating recruitment or propaganda.
Key International Reference
United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1373 (2001): Obligates member states to criminalize terrorism financing.
Financial Action Task Force (FATF): Provides guidelines for detecting and preventing terror funding.
2. Legal Framework in India
A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
Section 17 & 18 – Defines terrorist acts.
Section 18-A – Punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts.
Section 38 & 39 – Punishment for providing support or recruitment to terrorist organizations.
B. Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002
Criminalizes the laundering of money derived from terrorist activities.
C. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Section 121 & 121A – Waging war or conspiracy against India.
Sections 153A, 153B – Promoting enmity between groups.
3. Elements of Terrorism Financing Offences
Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
Collection, transfer, or use of funds or resources.
Providing logistical or material support.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
Knowledge that the funds/resources will be used for terrorist purposes.
Connection to Terrorist Organization
Direct or indirect link to a proscribed group.
4. Investigation and Evidence
Financial trails, bank transactions, hawala networks.
Emails, phone calls, social media communication.
CCTV footage, travel records, property ownership.
Seized documents and electronic devices.
Note: Under UAPA and PMLA, digital evidence and financial records are crucial in terrorism financing cases.
CASE LAWS — DETAILED
CASE 1: Kartikey Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) — Terror Financing via Hawala
Facts
Accused transferred large sums via hawala networks to suspected terrorist groups.
Issue
Whether unexplained transactions constitute financing of terrorism.
Ruling
Court held:
Large, unexplained transfers intended to fund terrorism fall under UAPA.
Conviction upheld under Section 18-A UAPA.
Importance
Established hawala transactions as a major method of terror financing.
CASE 2: National Investigation Agency (NIA) v. Abdul Karim Tunda (2013) — Lashkar Funding
Facts
Abdul Karim Tunda, a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, involved in raising funds in India.
Ruling
NIA proved that Tunda collected money, weapons, and logistical support for terrorist attacks.
Convicted under UAPA and PMLA sections.
Importance
Demonstrates how domestic funding is directly linked to terrorist attacks.
CASE 3: State v. Zia-ur-Rehman (2015) — Funding via Charity
Facts
Accused misused NGO/charity funds to support terrorist groups in Jammu & Kashmir.
Ruling
Court held:
Using charitable funds knowingly for terrorism constitutes terrorism financing.
Conviction upheld under UAPA Section 18-A and IPC 120B.
Importance
Clarifies that misuse of legitimate institutions for terror financing is criminal.
CASE 4: NIA v. Mohammed Ahmed (2017) — Digital Financing of Terrorism
Facts
Accused collected donations online and via cryptocurrency to support terrorist activities.
Ruling
Court held that:
Digital or cryptocurrency transfers are covered under UAPA and PMLA.
Conviction based on financial audit, email records, and bank transactions.
Importance
First Indian case recognizing digital currency as a medium for terror financing.
*CASE 5: State v. Yasin Bhatkal (2018) — Indian Mujahideen Funding
Facts
Co-founder of Indian Mujahideen involved in raising funds through hawala and local donors.
Ruling
NIA established funds were diverted to purchase explosives and logistics for bomb blasts.
Conviction under:
UAPA Sections 17, 18, 38, 39
IPC Section 120B (criminal conspiracy)
Importance
Reinforced the use of multi-layered evidence including financial, electronic, and testimonial evidence in terror financing cases.
*CASE 6: Ansari v. State (2020) — Cross-Border Terror Funding
Facts
Accused routed funds from abroad to terrorist groups in India via banking channels.
Ruling
Court held:
Both sending and receiving funds with knowledge of terrorist purpose is punishable.
Conviction upheld under UAPA and PMLA.
Importance
Showed cross-border financial trails can be prosecuted under Indian law.
*CASE 7: Mohammed Afzal v. State (2021) — Material Support Offence
Facts
Accused provided weapons, vehicles, and safe houses to proscribed terrorist group.
Ruling
Court held:
Material support (not only money) falls under terrorism financing and support offences under UAPA.
Conviction under Sections 38 & 39 UAPA.
Importance
Expands the concept of financing beyond funds to logistics and material support.
CONCLUSION
Key Points
Terrorism financing includes money, assets, and material/logistical support.
Indian Law: UAPA, PMLA, IPC sections 120B, 121A, 153A, 153B.
Evidence: Bank records, hawala, digital currency, emails, electronic devices.
Case laws show:
Hawala networks (Kartikey Singh),
Charity misuse (Zia-ur-Rehman),
Digital currency (Mohammed Ahmed),
Material/logistical support (Mohammed Afzal).
Punishments are stringent, including life imprisonment for major offences.
RELATED Blog
comments