Why in news
- The Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs examined regulatory friction between asset attachment under PMLA and resolution under IBC.
Key terms
Section 32A IBC
Statutory bar preventing prosecution of corporate debtor and attachment of its assets for pre-CIRP offences post resolution plan approval.
Proceeds of Crime
Any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under PMLA.
What is the PMLA-IBC conflict?
- PMLA, 2002 empowers the Enforcement Directorate to attach 'proceeds of crime', while IBC, 2016 aims to maximize asset value and complete time-bound resolution of corporate debtors.
- Conflict arose when attached assets of a corporate debtor prevented resolution applicants from taking over debt-laden companies clean of past criminal liabilities.
Key provisions and Section 32A mechanism
- Section 32A was inserted into the IBC via amendment to grant immunity to the corporate debtor's property from attachment or confiscation for offences committed prior to CIRP initiation.
- Protection applies once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) or results in liquidation, provided control passes to a new, unrelated management.
- Personal criminal liability of erstwhile promoters or directors for PMLA offences remains unaffected and continues independently.
Why it matters
- Provides commercial certainty to successful resolution applicants, preventing post-acquisition litigation and safeguarding asset realization for financial creditors.
Prelims facts
- Section 32A of IBC grants immunity to corporate debtor assets from PMLA action post-resolution if management changes.
Mains discussion
- Examine how harmonious construction between IBC and PMLA preserves commercial asset recovery without compromising anti-money laundering enforcement.
Source: PIB English
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.