Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in an order dated November 10, 2025, in K. Dismissed a miscellaneous application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case Murali Krishna vs Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate. The Court found “no valid grounds” to interfere with the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court, which had acquitted the CA of money laundering charges.
The case relates to allegations that forged documents were used to facilitate certain foreign remittances. The ED had accused Murali Krishna of issuing five Form 15CB certificates – documents required under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which certify the nature and purpose of foreign remittances – based on papers that were later found to be falsified by his client. The agency argued that this act facilitated the circulation of proceeds of crime and constituted an offense under the PMLA.
However, the Madras High Court in its detailed order dated November 23, 2022, had ruled that the professional duty of a chartered accountant in issuing Form 15CB is limited to confirming tax compliance and does not extend to scrutiny or authentication of client documents. The Court compared the role of a CA to that of a panel advocate giving legal opinion on title documents, holding that such professionals cannot be criminally prosecuted if the documents produced by clients later turn out to be forged.
The High Court had said, “The duty of a chartered accountant in issuing Form 15CB is limited to confirming the taxability of the remittance and ensuring compliance with the Income Tax Act. He is not required to examine the genuineness of the underlying documents.” It also noted that the CA had cooperated with the ED throughout the investigation and even assisted the agency in identifying the main accused, leading to the conclusion that his prosecution was not “sustainable in law”.
By upholding the High Court decision, the Supreme Court has now finalized three years of litigation, effectively confirming the limited scope of criminal liability for professionals acting in good faith within the bounds of statutory obligations. Experts say the decision has far-reaching implications for the accounting and consulting profession, which has been facing increasing scrutiny under the PMLA in recent years.
The ruling provides clarity that statutory certifications, such as Form 15CB, do not in themselves constitute active participation or abetment in money laundering unless there is evidence of intent or direct involvement.
Sandeep Sehgal, Partner-Tax, AKM Global, a tax and consulting firm, said the decision is an important affirmation of professional safeguards in India’s compliance ecosystem.
Sehgal said, “The Honorable Madras High Court in 2022 had delivered an important judgment on professional liability of Chartered Accountants (CAs) in cross-border transactions, clarifying that issuance of Form 15CB under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not amount to abetment of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).” ,
The judgment significantly clarifies that professional actions undertaken by CAs in compliance with statutory obligations do not automatically make them vulnerable to prosecution under the PMLA, provided there is no evidence of active instigation or direct involvement in money laundering activities.
He further said that the Supreme Court’s order dated November 10, 2025, which confirms the stand of the High Court, strengthens judicial confidence in protecting professional independence. “This provides CAs the confidence to discharge their certification duties without undue apprehension about judicial overreach or prosecution risk from investigating agencies,” Sehgal said.
“Importantly, it strikes a balance between enforcing anti-money laundering rules and protecting the professional independence and integrity of those carrying out statutory certification.”
Legal commentators said the decision also sets a precedent that distinguishes between professional negligence and criminal intent, emphasizing that the PMLA should not be used to criminalize routine compliance tasks. As the financial sector is increasingly dependent on professionals for certification and reporting obligations, the decision is expected to help restore confidence in India’s compliance and advisory ecosystem.
By refusing to reopen the case, the Supreme Court has underlined the need for measured enforcement under the PMLA, and warned against the extension of criminal liability to professionals acting in good faith. This judgment will likely serve as a guiding precedent in ongoing and future investigations where professionals have been designated solely to execute client instructions or issue statutory certificates based on documents provided by the client. With this decision, the judiciary has reaffirmed the good balance between regulatory vigilance and professional autonomy, ensuring that compliance professionals do not shy away from performing their statutory duties due to fear of prosecution.’