SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Paypal Payments Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Financial Intelligence Unit India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 138 of 2021
Decided On : 12-01-2021




The classification of facilitators as 'payment system operators' under the PML Act raises substantial legal issues, meriting further review and clarification from regulatory bodies.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(wa), 2(1)(rc), and 13(2)(d) - The petitioner challenged an order deeming it a 'reporting entity' under the PML Act and imposing a penalty of Rs.96 Lakhs for violations. The court found substantial legal questions regarding the petitioner's classification requiring further examination. (Paras 3, 9, 11)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court defined its jurisdiction amid concerns about the petitioner's operations as a facilitator and not a payment system operator. The court noted the conflicting positions of the RBI and the impugned order. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was penalized for alleged violations under the PML Act, which it contested on the grounds of its operational scope as a facilitator not handling actual transactions, suggesting reliance on RBI's stance that it does not fit under existing regulations. (Paras 4-6)

Findings of Court:
The court decided to stay the impugned order subject to compliance with certain directions. It acknowledged the need for clarity from the RBI and the Ministry of Finance regarding the classification of such platforms. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, acting as a facilitative platform, qualifies as a 'payment system operator' under the PML Act, necessitating a review of legal definitions and jurisdictional authority. (Paras 9, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a substantial legal issue exists regarding the classification of the petitioner under the PML Act, necessitating consultation between the RBI and the Ministry of Finance to clarify regulatory standards. The impugned order shall remain stayed pending compliance. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: The impugned order was stayed pending further compliance by the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. impugned order and penalties under pml act (Para 3)
2. petitioner's arguments against reporting entity status (Para 4 , 5)
3. preliminary objections raised by the respondent (Para 6 , 8)
4. need for regulatory clarity on payment system classification (Para 9 , 11)
5. court directions and stay order (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

CM APPLs. 422/2021 & CM APPLs. 423/2021(for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 138/2021 & CM APPL. 421/2021 (for interim relief)

3. The Petitioner in the present petition challenges the impugned order dated 17th December, 2020, passed by the Director, Financial Intelligence Unit-India, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. By the impugned order, the Petitioner has been held to be a "reporting entity" and a "payment system operator", under Section 2 (1)(wa) and Section 2 (1)(rc) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter, `PML Act'). Further, the impugned order finds the Petitioner guilty of violations under the provisions of the PML Act and has imposed a penalty amounting to Rs.96 Lakhs. The impugned order, thereafter, directs the Petitioner to register itself as a "reporting entity" with the Financial Intelligence Unit-India (hereinafter, "FIU-IND") as well as to appoint a Principal Officer and communicate the name, designation and address thereof, within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the said order. The operative portion of the said impugned order reads as under:

"52. In view of the above, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 13 (2)(d) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 impose a total fine of Rs.96,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Six lakhs only) on PayPal Payments Private Limited which will be commensurate with the violations committed by it. PayPal Payments Private Limited shall pay the said amount of fine within 45 days of receipt of this Order by way of Demand Draft in favour of "Pay & Account Officer, Department of Revenue" failing which the provisions of Section 69 of the Act shall apply.

53. Further, by virtue of powers conferred upon me under Section 13 (2)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, I, find it expedient to direct PayPal Payments Private Limited to:

(a) register itself as a reporting entity with FIU-IND within 15 days of the receipt of this Order;

(b) appoint the Principal Officer and communicate the name, designation and address thereof within 15 days of the receipt of this order; and

(c) appoint the Designated Director and communicate the name, designation and address thereof within 15 days of the receipt of this order."

4. On behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Rohatgi, ld. Senior Counsel and Mr. Poovayya, ld. Senior Counsel appear and submit that the Petitioner is only a facilitator platform which conducts two types of transactions. The first type of transactions are transactions in foreign exchange, which are merely facilitated between registered reporting entities. The second type of transactions are domestic transactions in Rupees. It is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi, ld. Senior counsel that each and every foreign exchange transaction is reported by the concerned reporting entity and the Petitioner is merely providing a facilitator platform and charging a nominal fee for each of the transactions. No foreign exchange is actually collected or paid by the Petitioner platform. He categorically submits and assures the Court that in the transactions facilitated by the Petitioner, no actual money is received or disbursed by the Petitioner-except for the payment of the nominal facilitator fee. He therefore submits, that the Petitioner cannot be deemed to be a "reporting entity" under the PML Act. Reliance is placed by the ld. senior counsel, upon the RBI's affidavit filed in another writ petition, where the RBI took a stand that the Petitioner is not operating or parti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top