The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective application of the amended provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and the principle of beneficial construction in construing whether a statute is applicable retrospectively.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The Financial Intelligence Unit-IND, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (hereafter 'FIU') has filed the present appeals-fourteen in number-under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning a common judgment dated 28.06.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereafter 'the Appellate Tribunal').

2. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal had modified the orders passed by the Director, FIU under Section 13(2) of the Act. By those orders, the Director, FIU had imposed the maximum fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each instance of failure on part of the respondent banks to comply with the obligations as set out in Section 12 of the Act, read with Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance and Records) Rules, 2005 (hereafter 'the Rules'). Whilst the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondent banks that there was no failure to report any suspicious transactions, it proceeded to reduce the punitive measure as imposed by the Director, FIU. The Appellate Tribunal held that the violation of the reporting obligations on part of the respondent banks warranted issuance of a warning in writing under Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, instead of a monetary penalty as imposed under Section 13(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the respective orders imposing penalty on the respondent banks were modified to the aforesaid extent.

3. Mr. Aggarwala, learned counsel appearing for the FIU, has assailed the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on a solitary ground. He submits that Section 13(2) of the Act, as in force prior to 15.02.2013, did not contemplate issuance of a warning for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. He has earnestly contended that the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, prior to 15.02.2013, was required to be visited with monetary fine which could not be less than Rs.10,000/- for each failure.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the only question that is required to be considered by this Court is whether the Appellate Tribunal could modify the order passed by the Director, FIU by reducing the penalty imposed.

5. The controversy in the present case arises from a sting operation that was conducted by reporters of an online media portal named "Cobrapost.com" (hereafter 'Cobrapost'). Sometime in the year 2012- 13 (dates on which the sting operation was conducted are not on record), the reporters of the media portal, Cobrapost, conducted a sting operation called "Operation Red Spider" (hereafter "the sting operation"). The sting operation, inter alia, entailed undercover reporters approaching employees of various banks representing themselves to be customers who required to open accounts to deposit black money belonging to "a Minister" and for laundering the same. The sting operation was designed to expose the role of banks in money laundering.

6. The conversations between the reporters acting as prospective customers and officials of various banks were recorded and were reported on the media portal, Cobrapost. The said conversations, essentially, indicated that officials of the banks had expressed willingness to accept deposits of black money in accounts to be opened by the reporters posing as prospective customers. Some of the conversations indicated that the employees of banks had discussed the methodology for laundering the black money by investing the same in insurance schemes. Some of the conversations also indicated that the bank officials had agreed to facilitate hiring of lockers for storing currency. These conversations were placed in the public domain. The respondent banks do not dispute that the said conversations did take place. However, they contend that the conversations placed on the website are not complete and have been edited and extracted in a manner so as to feed the perception that