White Collar Crimes Quarterly Milestones (January-March 2026)

The Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) plenary outcomes of February 2026, and the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) press release of 9 March 2026, affect how Indian regulated entities should assess AML/Know-Your-Customer (KYC) risk ratings in customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, and suspicious transaction reporting.

Kuwait and Papua New Guinea have been added to the list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring, while North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar have been re-emphasised as high-risk jurisdictions requiring enhanced due diligence.

RBI has clarified that these updates do not prohibit legitimate trade or business with such jurisdictions. The compliance impact for Indian businesses is operational. Regulated entities will need to reassess customer-risk ratings and screening frameworks, and enhance monitoring and diligence measures, including customer acceptance norms and beneficial ownership checks for exposure to these newly listed jurisdictions.

In Arun Suri v Directorate of Enforcement,¹ the Delhi High Court upheld the attachment of a residential property that had not been purchased using proceeds of crime. The property was originally acquired before the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) came into force, i.e., before the offence of money laundering in its present form was created.

The Court held that where direct proceeds of crime are unavailable or have moved abroad, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) may proceed against ancestral or inherited property even if such property had no nexus with the offence of money-laundering or tainted funds, as ancestral or inherited property could represent property equivalent in value to the proceeds of crime. It also clarified that the ancestral or inherited nature of an asset does not, by itself, immunise against attachment by virtue of having been acquired before the offence of money-laundering.

For businesses and individuals facing PMLA proceedings, as well as counterparties evaluating assets held by owners who are facing unrelated PMLA proceedings, this materially expands asset-preservation risks as pre-existing, family-held, or otherwise clean assets are not immune from attachment if they are viewed as substitutes for unavailable proceeds of crime. Given that provisional attachment may occur during the course of an investigation, and not only upon conviction, this also creates heightened business uncertainty. Accordingly, in transactions involving parties facing PMLA proceedings, enhanced PMLA diligence, as well as contractual safeguards such as ringfencing and escrow mechanisms, should be considered to protect the asset or property that is the subject of the transaction.

In Directorate of Enforcement v Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt Ltd.,² the Delhi High Court upheld the attachment of property purchased in 2005 using alleged proceeds of a crime, even though the crime in question was committed before the PMLA came into force. The Court held that money laundering is a continuing offence. If a person continues to possess or use property that qualifies as proceeds of crime after the PMLA came into force, proceedings under the Act are not retrospective merely because the original acquisition occurred earlier. Continued possession or enjoyment of such property is sufficient to sustain the offence. This significantly strengthens the ED’s ability to act in older corruption matters where historically tainted assets remain in circulation.

For companies and individuals assessing legacy exposure, this means that the age of acquisition is not a complete defence. If the asset still exists and is still held or enjoyed, ED may argue that the laundering offence remains alive, with corresponding attachment and confiscation consequences.