Article by Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court, Partner & Head of Intellectual Property Laws Division, Vaish Associates Advocates, India

In the intricate tapestry of legal frameworks, Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) emerges as a crucial thread that weaves together punishment and deterrence within the sphere of money laundering. This section, though pivotal, raises intriguing questions about its alignment with constitutional safeguards, the nuances of sentencing, and the distinctive treatment of money laundering offenses linked to certain predicate offenses. In this exploration, we delve into the depths of Section 4, dissecting its implications and shedding light on the multifaceted dimensions it encapsulates.

The Enigma of Double Jeopardy

Section 4 of the PMLA, while serving the purpose of punishment for the offense of money laundering, introduces an intriguing facet that conjures the notion of double jeopardy. This legal principle, safeguarded by Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, prevents an individual from being prosecuted or punished for the same offense more than once. The apparent tension between Section 4 and Article 20 presents a complex legal labyrinth that requires careful navigation.

Under the purview of Section 4, the punishment for money laundering entails rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a duration ranging from three to seven years, accompanied by a stipulated fine. However, the introduction of the phrase "which may extend to ten years" in cases involving specific predicate offenses under Part A of the Schedule adds a layer of complexity. This amplification of punishment raises questions about the congruence of this provision with the tenets of double jeopardy. The interplay between Section 4 and constitutional safeguards invites an exploration into the balance between punitive measures and individual rights.

Unveiling the Gradation of Punishment

A crucial tenet of Section 4 is the gradation of punishment that hinges on the severity of the offense. The quantum of rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to seven years signifies the gravity of money laundering offenses. Notably, the concept of rigorous imprisonment entails confinement coupled with forced labor, highlighting the stringent nature of the punishment.

A notable amendment to Section 4 involves the abolition of the fine previously capped at Rs. 5 lakhs. This amendment, effected from February 15, 2013, eliminated the financial imposition, signifying an emphasis on punitive measures beyond mere financial ramifications. The absence of a specified fine underscores the intention to focus on the imprisonment aspect, aligning with the overarching aim of curbing money laundering activities.

Sentencing and Discretion: A Delicate Balance

Section 4 navigates the delicate equilibrium between uniform sentencing and judicial discretion. Once the commission of the offense is proven, the court is mandated to impose a minimum sentence, a stipulation enshrined in the section. However, this provision does not permit the court to exercise discretion in reducing the sentence, even on the grounds of special or substantial reasons. This mandate underscores the rigorous nature of the legal response to money laundering offenses.

Remarkably, Section 4 caters to a range of sentences between three to seven years, affording a degree of flexibility within the punitive framework. The interplay between the minimum and maximum sentence encapsulates a balance between stringent sentencing and the nuances of individual cases. Nonetheless, it is imperative to appreciate that money laundering offenses are not bailable due to the mandatory minimum sentences they carry, ranging from three to seven years.

Distinctive Treatment: A Question of Predicate Offenses

One of the most intriguing aspects of Section 4 lies in its disparate treatment of money laundering offenses tied to specific predicate offenses, as evidenced by the provision's extension to ten years in such cases. This differentiation, exemplified in offenses under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, raises a fundamental question about the congruence of punishment within the realm of money laundering.

The rationale behind such differentiation lies in the nature of certain predicate offenses, which have global implications and are often perpetuated by organized crime entities. The alignment with specific predicate offenses underscores the distinctive repercussions of money laundering tied to these offenses, signaling an approach that reflects the distinct legal standing of such crimes.

The Crucible of Justice and Deterrence

In the crucible of Section 4, the elements of justice and deterrence intertwine to craft a legal response to money laundering offenses. The section, with its nuanced provisions, seeks to strike a balance between individual rights and societal interests. The exploration of double jeopardy, the gradation of punishment, the balance between sentencing and discretion, and the distinctive treatment of predicate offenses shape the evolving narrative of money laundering prevention.

As jurisprudence continues to evolve, the equilibrium between punitive measures and constitutional safeguards remains pivotal. In the enigma of Section 4, the essence of justice is etched, reflecting a society's commitment to curbing financial improprieties while upholding the principles of fairness and legality.


Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate

Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court

Email id:

Mobile No.: +91 9810081079



Twitter: @vpdalmia

© 2020, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.