NISM Professor

Money laundering

Also written Money laundering (Vienna Convention Article 3.1) · ML · Laundering · Offence of money-laundering

Turning the proceeds of a crime into money that looks legitimate — classically in three stages, placement, layering and integration — and a standalone offence under section 3 of the PMLA.

In plain language

Crime produces cash, and cash is the criminal's problem.

A syndicate that has just collected Rs 24 crore from an illegal betting operation cannot buy a flat with it, cannot bank it without being asked where it came from, and cannot spend it without pointing an investigator straight back at the offence. Money laundering is the work of making that money spendable — disguising its origin so the proceeds can be enjoyed without jeopardising their source.

That is why the law treats laundering as a crime in its own right rather than as a footnote to the original one. Take away the laundering and the original crime does not pay.

How it works

The workbook frames the process in three stages:

StageWhat happens
PlacementCriminal cash enters the financial system — large sums broken into inconspicuous ones, cash folded into a business's legitimate takings, gold or gems bought, a casino used
LayeringThe money is moved through enough transactions that the trail breaks — accounts scattered across uncooperative jurisdictions, investments bought and sold, transfers dressed up as private loans or as payment for services
IntegrationThe money re-emerges looking earned — real estate, luxury assets, business ventures, dividends from a company the criminal controls

Not every case runs all three neatly. Stages get combined, or repeated several times. The rule of three frames a compliance team's thinking; it is not a statutory sequence.

Section 3 of the PMLA defines the offence without mentioning stages at all. A person is guilty if he directly or indirectly attempts to indulge in, knowingly assists, is knowingly a party to, or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime — specifically its concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting it as untainted property, or claiming it as untainted property. The Act adds that this is a continuing activity, which continues for as long as the person is enjoying the proceeds in any of those ways.

Section 4 punishes it with rigorous imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven, plus fine — extending to ten years where the proceeds relate to an offence in paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule. Under section 5, the Director, or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him, may record his reasons in writing and provisionally attach the property for a period not exceeding 180 days.

A worked example

The crime. An online betting syndicate operating out of Hyderabad collects Rs 24 crore in cash over eight months. Cheating and criminal conspiracy sit in Part A of the Schedule, so the Rs 24 crore is proceeds of crime and dealing with it is an offence under section 3.

Placement. Between June and August, forty current accounts opened in the names of drivers, watchmen and unemployed graduates — each paid Rs 15,000 for the use of his identity — take cash deposits of Rs 9.4 lakh each, deliberately under the Rs 10 lakh figure at which a cash transaction becomes reportable under Rule 3.

Layering. The balances are routed into twelve trading accounts at a Mumbai broking firm. Over three weeks the twelve accounts trade one thinly traded smallcap among themselves, generating turnover of Rs 41 crore in a stock whose normal daily volume is about Rs 12 lakh. Part of the money leaves India as cross-border wire transfers of Rs 4.8 lakh each, kept under the Rs 5 lakh wire-transfer reporting figure.

Integration. In November the syndicate's front company buys commercial premises for Rs 8.5 crore and starts paying salaries to nine employees who do not exist.

What breaks it. The broker's surveillance throws an alert on the circular trading. Its Principal Officer concludes on 14 November that the transactions are suspicious and files a Suspicious Transaction Report with FIU-IND on 21 November, inside the seven working days Rule 8(2) allows. Separately the property purchase, being Rs 50 lakh or more, goes into the reporting entity's quarterly return. FIU-IND joins the two up and the Directorate of Enforcement provisionally attaches the premises under section 5.

Notice what the broker did not do: it did not put restrictions on the accounts, and it did not tell the clients. Both would have been mistakes.

Why NISM asks about it

Chapter 1 (Introduction to AML, CFT and PF) opens with the definition and the three stages, and Chapter 2 (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) supplies the offence in section 3 and the punishment in section 4. Between them they are the most heavily examined pages in the paper. Expect a one-line fact pattern followed by "which stage is this?", a straight recall question on the three-to-seven-year sentence, and questions testing that laundering is an offence separate from the crime that produced the money.

Common exam traps

  • The three stages are a description, not a legal test. A prosecution under section 3 never has to prove placement, layering and integration in order. It has to prove a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime.
  • Laundering needs a predicate offence. Without a scheduled offence under Part A, B or C generating proceeds of crime, there is nothing to launder. Money that merely looks odd is not money laundering.
  • Mere possession is enough. Section 3 lists concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting and claiming — all six. The money need not have moved anywhere at all.
  • It is expressly a continuing offence. The activity continues for as long as the person is enjoying the proceeds, which is why arguments about when the laundering "finished" tend to fail.
  • Three to seven years, not "up to seven". Section 4 sets a minimum of three years rigorous imprisonment. The ten-year ceiling applies only where the proceeds relate to paragraph 2 of Part A.
  • Do not merge money laundering with terrorist financing. Laundering makes dirty money look clean; terrorist financing often takes clean money and puts it to a criminal purpose. AML and CFT are legislated together but they run in opposite directions.

Where this is taught

Free preparation for NISM Series IFSCA-01

Related terms

← All terms
Something look wrong? Report it