CLAT PG Current Affairs — 1 July 2026

India's Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), enacted in 2002 and operationalised from 1 July 2005 via the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), is the primary legislation combating money laundering. It criminalises concealment, possession, acquisition or use of proceeds of crime. Penalties range from 3–7 years rigorous imprisonment (up to 10 years for NDPS-linked offences). Both individuals and corporate entities face prosecution. The FIU-IND and ED are the twin enforcement arms, with sectoral regulators like RBI, SEBI, and IRDAI supplementing compliance.

The PMLA is not merely a penal statute — it is a layered compliance architecture. Understanding it requires grasping three interlocking components: predicate offences, proceeds of crime, and the reporting entity framework.

First, money laundering cannot exist in isolation — it presupposes a 'scheduled offence' generating tainted property. The Schedule to PMLA has three parts: Part A covers domestic predicate offences (IPC/BNS, NDPS Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, SEBI Act); Part B covers Customs Act violations above ₹1 crore; and Part C recognises cross-border offences with extraterritorial reach, including foreign crimes whose proceeds travel to India.

Second, the offence is a 'continuing offence' — it does not crystallise at one point but persists as long as proceeds remain concealed or projected as untainted. This is critical for limitation period questions: since PMLA prescribes no limitation period and the offence is continuing, prosecutions can be initiated long after the predicate crime.

Third, corporate liability under Section 70 means both the entity and the responsible officer can be prosecuted simultaneously — a dual liability model important for CLAT PG's application-based questions.

The ED exercises exclusive PMLA powers including provisional attachment of property. FIU-IND handles suspicious transaction reports (STRs) from reporting entities. This institutional architecture — ED for prosecution, FIU-IND for intelligence, RBI/SEBI/IRDAI for sectoral compliance — forms the backbone of India's AML framework.

SEBI issued an Ex-Parte Interim Order against Ashok Dilipkumar Jain and others for alleged fraudulent trading and market manipulation in securities markets. The order was passed under Sections 11, 11B, and 11D of the SEBI Act, 1992, restraining the entities from accessing securities markets. Ex-parte orders allow SEBI to act without hearing the opposing party when urgent investor protection demands immediate intervention. The order directs impounding of alleged unlawful gains pending further investigation and inquiry.

An ex-parte interim order by SEBI is a critical regulatory tool where SEBI acts unilaterally — without providing an advance hearing to the accused — because the urgency of protecting investors or market integrity outweighs procedural fairness at that preliminary stage. This is not an anomaly but a legally recognised exception rooted in administrative law: when delay would cause irreparable harm, natural justice can be temporarily suspended.

In the Ashok Dilipkumar Jain matter, SEBI found prima facie evidence suggesting coordinated fraudulent trading — potentially front-running, circular trading, or pump-and-dump schemes — that threatened market integrity. SEBI invoked Section 11(1) (general power to protect investor interest), Section 11B (power to issue directions), and Section 11D (power to impound proceeds of illegal activity).

For CLAT PG aspirants, the key legal tensions here are: (1) whether ex-parte orders violate the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice; (2) how courts have reconciled urgency with fairness — the Supreme Court in SEBI v. Kishore Ajmera held that post-order hearings cure the procedural defect; and (3) the distinction between interim, ad-interim, and final orders in securities law enforcement. Subsequent procedures mandate that after an ex-parte order, SEBI must provide an opportunity of hearing, making the process compliant with constitutional due process standards under Article 21.