India has widened the ambit of anti-money laundering law by bringing in new reporting entities, and changed the way financial transactions are recorded, giving more powers to authorities as it prepares for a review by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in November. The changes seek to make the framework more effective & compliant. ET looks at the changes:
MORE TEETH TO AUTHORITIES
- Enforcement Directorate given more powers
- Agency empowered to carry out search, seizure without notice
- Imprisonment up to seven years
- Power to impose fine without upper limit
- Can seize and attach properties, including virtual currencies …
…TO ADMINISTER EXPANDED PMLA REGIME
A: MORE REPORTING ENTITIES
More entities brought under the PMLA reporting framework:.
These are:
- Chartered accountants, company secretaries, cost work accountants
- Directors, secretaries of cos, partners of firms
- Intermediaries in casinos and crypto or virtual digital assets
- Trustees of express trusts, nominee shareholders
- People arranging addresses, trustees for businesses
- Individuals helping in formation of a company
B. MORE TRANSACTIONS & INCREASED DISCLOSURES
- Lowered threshold of beneficial ownership to 10% from 25%
- More disclosure of beneficial owners apart from KYC
- More disclosure for non-profit organisation
- Widened definition of ‘politically exposed persons
C. NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES COVERED BROADENED
- Buying and selling any immovable property on behalf of someone
- Managing client money, securities, or other assets
- Management of bank, savings, or securities accounts
- Organisation of contributions for creation, operation, or management of companies
INDIA GEARS UP FOR FATF EVALUATION
- FATF to review India’s anti money laundering framework
- Review of compliance as per 40 FATF recommendations
- Last FATF peer review was carried out in 2010
- Review to be discussed at FATF June ’24 meet
INDUSTRY APPREHENSIVE ABOUT CHANGES
- Says new norms will substantially enhance compliance burden
- Fears prosecution under PMLA for even small lapses
- These are seen as putting a strain on resources of smaller firms
- TOO MUCH POWER to enforcement agencies