White-Collar Crime 2025 Comparisons

Effective from 1 July 2024, the criminal law regime in India underwent a major overhaul. Presently, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is the primary legislation enumerating general criminal offences and prescribing punishment. BNS repealed and replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Similarly, the previous Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have been repealed and replaced by Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), respectively.

Cognisable offences are considered serious, allowing a police officer to arrest a person without a court warrant. Conversely, for non-cognisable offences, an officer requires a court’s permission before making an arrest.

Bailable offences are those where an arrested person may seek bail from the police officer/jurisdictional court as a matter of right, on presentation of a bond/undertaking to ensure their future appearance. In non-bailable offences, bail cannot be claimed as a right and must be applied for before the jurisdictional court.

Compoundable offences are those which can be settled between the complainant and the accused. The BNSS provides methods for compounding, with or without court involvement. Some offences require court permission to be compounded. Serious offences and certain socio-economic offences are non-compoundable. However, courts exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS may quash proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, if necessary to serve justice or prevent abuse of process.

Constituents of an Offence

Broadly, in order to establish criminal liability, the prosecution must prove the existence of the following two elements, beyond reasonable doubt:

• mens rea or guilty intention (the accused must be proven to have knowingly committed the crime, with full knowledge of their actions, and must have mala fide – ie, intent; however, heinous crimes such as rape do not necessarily require guilty intent and the act itself is sufficient); and
• actus reus or commission of the illegal act or omission.

An attempt to commit an offence, including abetment of a crime, is also punishable under Indian law.

Indian criminal law follows the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. Unless a statute specifically provides for reversing the onus of proof, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, which must prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt” against the accused.

A reverse onus clause is prescribed under certain special statutes, such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”). They provide for a presumption of guilt against the accused persons who must prove their innocence. The constitutionality of reverse burden of proof has been upheld under the PMLA as well as statutes dealing with terrorism, organised crimes, drug offences, and sexual violence against children. Even in such cases, the prosecution must prove that foundational facts are established before the reverse onus is triggered.

The BNSS prescribes limitation periods for prosecution of certain offences, based on maximum punishment.

• For offences punishable only with a fine, the limitation period is six months from commission.
• For offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year, the limitation period is one year.

• For offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than one year and up to three years, the limitation period is three years.

• For offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years, no limitation period applies.

In cases where there is a conflict between the limitation period prescribed under the BNSS and that under a special statute, the latter will prevail.

Where an offence remains undetected, the date of its commission will be construed as the date on which the offence becomes known. Further, if the perpetrator of an offence remains unknown even after detection of an offence, the date on which the perpetrator’s identity is revealed will be the relevant date for determining the limitation period.

The expiry date of limitation is the date on which the investigation report or the complaint is filed before court. For continuing offences, a fresh limitation period begins to run at every moment during which the offence continues. The limitation period for offences that may be tried together is determined with reference to the offence that carries the higher punishment.

Sections 3 and 4 of the BNS along with Section 208 of the BNSS recognise extraterritorial application of the Indian criminal law. An Indian citizen can be punished for offences committed outside India. A person outside India can also be punished for an offence in India under the BNS. Section 48 of the BNS further extends this reach by making it an offence to abet the commission of a crime in India from outside the country.

Further, any person who commits an offence aboard an Indian-registered ship/aircraft, or who targets a computer source in India, can be prosecuted in India.

The extraterritorial reach of investigation agencies is also reflected in various specialised legislation targeting economic offences, such as the PMLA, which relies on bilateral assistance with notified countries to assist in investigations.

Retaining the old regime, the BNSS statutorily recognises reciprocal arrangements with other countries concerning the service of summonses/warrants, the conduct of investigations, the collection of evidence, and the attachment and forfeiture of property.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) and Cross-Border Co-Operation

India has bilateral arrangements for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. The BNSS provides a procedure for the issuance of summonses by a court (or police officer through the court), requiring the appearance of a person or the production of documents or materials relevant to an investigation, enquiry, or trial. Summonses may be issued to any person believed to possess such information.

India has MLATs with 14 countries, enabling service of summonses to persons in their territory, subject to the precondition of double criminality for invoking the MLAT route. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is the nodal ministry and central authority for all such assistance.

For countries not covered under an MLAT, the MHA makes requests based on reciprocity through the concerned mission/embassy, though non-MLAT countries have no obligation to comply.

Letters rogatory (LR) are generally used where no MLAT exists. LR are requests sent by a court in one country to a court in another for assistance in the investigation/prosecution of criminal matters. The BNSS prescribes a procedure for sending LR through a competent court at the request of the investigating officer/agency. In cases involving non-reciprocating territories, the investigating agency must seek the MHA’s concurrence before approaching the court for issuance of LR. Once issued, LR are forwarded to the MHA and transmitted through the Ministry of External Affairs to the central authority of the foreign state.

The MHA has issued comprehensive guidelines for cross-border investigations and service of summonses, notices, and judicial documents in criminal matters through MLATs and LR. MHA guidelines issued under the erstwhile CrPC continue to apply under the BNSS.

Extradition

The Indian Extradition Act, 1962, governs the process of extradition. India has entered into extradition arrangements with a number of countries with whom it does not have a bilateral extradition treaty. In the absence of an extradition treaty between India and a foreign state, the central government may, by notified order, treat any convention to which India and that state are parties, as an extradition treaty.

Currently, India has extradition treaties with 48 foreign states (including the USA, UK and Switzerland) and extradition arrangements with 12 foreign states (including Sweden and Singapore).

India is a member of several multilateral treaties providing mutual assistance in enforcement, including the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), which facilitate sharing of data on crimes and criminals, along with technical and operational support.

India has been an FATF member since 2010. The FATF has commended India’s efforts against illicit finance, placing it in the “regular follow-up” category, the highest rating. India is part of the FATF Steering Group and contributes to global initiatives against money laundering and terrorism financing.

India has been an INTERPOL member since 1949, supporting efforts against transnational crimes including terrorism, narcotics, money laundering, and cybercrime. In January 2025, India joined 52 countries in INTERPOL’s Silver Notice pilot phase, a tool to recover assets, combat organised crime, and enhance co-operation by requesting asset-related information across borders.

Since 2023, the number of Red Notices issued by INTERPOL at India’s request has increased remarkably, with 100 notices in 2023, 107 in 2024 and 56 in the first six months of 2025. On 21 August 2025, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) issued its first Purple Notice through INTERPOL, notifying 196 member states of a new trade-based money laundering modus operandi discovered during investigations, marking a significant enforcement step.

Indian law enforcement agencies actively participate in cross-border enforcement actions and work with international partners. Recently, the joint probe by the ED and the US Department of Justice (DOJ), has led to the dismantling of a sprawling narcotics network that laundered more than USD150 million through cryptocurrency and dark-web marketplaces. The ED had launched the probe upon a request from the DOJ in 2022 under the India–US MLAT, focusing on the organisation’s financial networks, and obtained key financial records uncovering transfers through a digital payment service provider. Recently, the Delhi High Court, in JK Tyre v ED, quashed a freezing action that was initiated by the ED at the request from the government of Brazil, on the ground that the said request was withdrawn by the government of Brazil.

There is no vicarious liability under the BNS. However, special statutes such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically provide for vicarious liability.

To impose criminal liability on corporate entities, the doctrine of attribution is applied. This means that the mens rea, or guilty intent, of the directors or persons responsible for the company’s affairs may be attributed to the corporate entity itself.

Conversely, in the absence of a specific provision in a statute recognising vicarious liability, the doctrine of attribution cannot be applied to impose criminal liability on directors/persons in charge of the affairs of a company. Similarly, a company cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of its employees unless there is a specific provision for it, or the company abetted the act.

Investigation agencies entrusted with the investigation of white-collar crimes, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ED, and Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), are increasingly identifying accused persons in corporate crimes based on statutory filings, resulting in identification of promoters, directors, and other senior officials of a company. Despite statutory guidance limiting prosecution to those responsible for an entity’s affairs, criminal cases are often initiated against individuals with no role in the offence. Courts have struck down such overbroad investigations and attempts to implicate unconnected persons or independent third parties.

Parent companies cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of their subsidiaries unless it is shown through evidence that the parent entity actively directed or controlled the subsidiary’s operations and further took part in the unlawful conduct.

Indian criminal law does not currently recognise a framework of corporate liability for “failure to prevent”-style offences as found in jurisdictions like the UK.

Certain special statutes impose preventive obligations on corporations and their officials. However, failure to comply with such obligations is not an offence under Indian law. While some of these impose oversight and preventive responsibilities, they do not recognise a standalone corporate offence for failing to prevent an employee’s wrongdoing in the broad “failure to prevent” sense.

There is no formal sentencing policy in India. Courts have wide discretion in the sentencing of accused persons, subject to prescription of a minimum punishment.

The BNS provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment, imposition of fines, forfeiture of property, and other methods. However, community service has now been introduced as a punishment for first-time offenders for offences under Sections 202, 209, 226, 303, 355, and 356 of the BNS.

Under the BNS, the Parliament has mandated minimum punishments for certain offences such as theft and dishonest misappropriation of property.

The BNS has increased punishments for offences such as criminal breach of trust (from three to five years), and cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may be caused (from three to five years).

Courts may impose a fine as an alternative to imprisonment or along with imprisonment. For certain offences, statutes stipulate the maximum quantum of fines that may be imposed by the court. When a sum is not expressed under the statute, the quantum of the fine is unlimited, though the guiding principle is that fines shall not be excessive.

There is no concept of a deferred prosecution agreement or non-prosecution agreement in India. However, plea bargaining is available in India for certain offences, as detailed in 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency.

As per the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India, while awarding sentences, courts must consider the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Factors such as corporate culture and remediation efforts do not typically form part of the factors required to be considered for sentencing.

Mitigation factors such as co-operation with investigators, voluntary disclosure, early remediation and restitution to affected parties, and a clean prior record may be relevant for appropriate sentencing.

Courts have wide discretionary powers to award compensation at the time of sentencing. Criminal courts may, after considering the factors set out in the BNSS, award compensation. No guidelines exist for awarding compensation to crime victims. It depends on the offence’s gravity, the victim’s loss, and the offender’s ability to pay.

If the offender does not have the means to pay, the court can compel the state to pay from the state victim compensation fund (although a policy for compelling the state to pay has not been implemented in most states). Fine amounts may range from the alleged amount involved in the crime to, sometimes, multiples of such amount. For instance, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 2002 (FEMA), prescribes a penalty of up to three times the amount involved in the contravention.

Constitutional courts have also provided compensation under the writ jurisdiction as part of the fundamental right to life and in exercise of powers given to constitutional courts.

One notable change introduced under the BNSS is Section 107(6) and (7) which states that monies realised from liquidating/selling an attached property identified as the proceeds of a crime, are liable to be distributed rateably among the victims of such crime.

Indian law does not provide for class action suits for white-collar criminal offences.

Federal Agencies

The CBI (established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) is responsible for investigating complex crimes, including white-collar offences, typically in cases involving the PCA or cases of public importance. There are designated special courts notified to try cases investigated by the CBI.

The ED has been established to investigate contraventions of the Indian exchange control laws and anti-money laundering regulations. Cases investigated by the ED are adjudicated by adjudicating authorities (AA) set up under FEMA and the PMLA. Appeals against orders of the AA under the PMLA and FEMA are brought before a specialised appellate tribunal.

The SFIO was established to investigate offences under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”). SFIO investigations have been given priority, as investigations by other investigative agencies must await the completion of the SFIO investigation. The SFIO may share information with other agencies for offences beyond its scope and obtain information from them for its inquiries. Designated special courts try Companies Act cases.

The income tax department (“IT Authority”) has the authority to investigate cases of income tax evasion, undisclosed foreign assets (termed “black money” under Indian law), and income tax fraud.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is tasked with detecting and curbing smuggling of contraband, including drug trafficking, as well as combating commercial fraud related to international trade and evasion of customs duty. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) is entrusted with the tasks of collecting, collating, and disseminating intelligence related to the evasion of goods and services tax (GST), and central excise duty.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is a federal authority that provides advice and guidance to its agencies on matters related to vigilance, and receives complaints concerning allegations of corruption or misappropriation of office, and recommends appropriate action. Matters investigated and recommended by the CVC are tried by courts designated to try offences under the PCA.

State Agencies

The police force of each state/union territory is responsible for maintaining law and order in the designated area as well as registering complaints and investigating crimes. A special branch in the local police structure, namely the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), specifically deals with economic offences involving a certain threshold of monetary value. The EOW is responsible for dealing with, inter alia, banking crimes, housing crimes, corporate fraud, general cheating, and crimes relating to the security and commodities markets.

Regulatory Oversight

Certain regulators are also empowered to investigate regulatory offences. For example, SEBI is empowered to investigate fraudulent and prohibited transactions in securities, including insider trading. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) can also prosecute banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) for regulatory offences.

Conflict of Jurisdiction

Different authorities investigating the same offence have defined jurisdictions. The SFIO investigates offences under the Companies Act. In RK Gupta v Union of India, 2023:DHC:9243, the Delhi High Court held that the SFIO can also investigate offences under the IPC (now BNS).

The ED has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate money laundering offences but only after registration of a predicate offence listed under the PMLA. If the predicate offence is quashed or the accused discharged, the ED cannot continue proceedings under the PMLA.

Similarly, state police cannot exercise general investigative powers once a case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CBI.

Civil/Administrative Enforcement Against White-Collar Offences

White-collar crime does not have any civil enforcement mechanisms, except a duty to disclose in certain cases and restitution under tort law. However, certain legislation, like the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) provides for a claw-back/disgorgement of undue benefit received by the offender.

Public policy can influence enforcement actions in India, primarily aiming to protect public interest and uphold the rule of law. Notable cases like the Satyam scandal (2009), which exposed massive financial fraud and corporate governance failures, led to stringent reforms in regulatory oversight and prosecution under the IPC (now BNS).

Investigations typically commence upon the filing of a complaint with the appropriate investigative authority, although certain legislation empowers authorities to initiate investigations suo motu.

Under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, a preliminary enquiry is now mandatory before investigating any cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years. This enquiry, which must be completed within 14 days of receiving the information, requires the investigating officer to determine whether a prima facie case exists to proceed – representing a higher threshold than under the previous regime, which required only verification that a cognisable offence had been identified.

The first information report (FIR) marks the formal commencement of an investigation. The BNSS introduced several new provisions relating to the registration of an FIR. Under Section 173, a Zero FIR may be registered at any police station, regardless of where the offence occurred. However, it must eventually be forwarded to the police station with territorial jurisdiction.

Section 173 has introduced the e-FIR, whereby a complaint is submitted electronically on the online e-FIR portal of the relevant police authority. Thereafter, the complainant is required to visit the police station within three days and sign a physical copy of the complaint. The BNSS also mandates that a copy of the e-FIR be shared with the complainant.

The MHA has introduced a Standard Operating Procedure (MHA SOP) detailing the necessary steps for registering a Zero FIR and e-FIR, and also the procedure for conducting the preliminary enquiry.

The court may also direct the investigation of a crime, where the police fail to initiate an investigation by registering an FIR. A public servant cannot be prosecuted for offences of bribery and corruption without prior sanction from the government.

An ED investigation is initiated after registration of a scheduled offence under the PMLA. A complaint is then registered if the authority has reason to believe that “proceeds of crime” may have been generated through the commission of a scheduled offence.

The CBI and SFIO cannot initiate investigations independently – they must be authorised by the central government or directed by a court. However, the SFIO can investigate the affairs of a company if required in the public interest, and subject to shareholder approval.

IT authorities and the CVC can initiate investigations. However, there are certain internal safeguards provided by the IT Act and the CVA Act, 2003, that allow authorities to determine probable cause or develop a prima facie view prior to initiating an investigation.

The police, EOW, and CBI have wide powers to summon persons, conduct searches and seizures, compel production of documents, and arrest accused persons for interrogation during the investigation. They may compel any employee, officer, or director of a company to join the investigation.

Failure to join the investigation may be treated as non-cooperation and grounds for arrest in some cases. Section 94 of the BNSS has been expanded so that a person can be compelled to produce communication devices. This has raised issues regarding the seizure of confidential, personal, sensitive, and legally privileged information, the scope of exclusion for which is currently being tested by Indian courts.

The BNSS mandates the recording of search proceedings through audiovisual electronic means, preferably through smartphones, until specialised devices are finalised. A crime scene must also be mandatorily videographed.

The MHA SOP further instructs the first responder to submit the record of audiovisual documentation in a mirror copy, along with a chain of custody for the primary evidence. Where a crime scene is videographed, the MHA SOP mandates that the recording must be processed in an e-Case Diary or through the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS)-enabled application, e-Sakshya.

The CVC is empowered with all the powers of a civil court, including the power to summon and compel attendance, conduct examinations under oath, demand the production of documents, receive evidence through affidavits, and requisition public records.

The SFIO has the same powers as that of an inspector under the Companies Act, which include the powers of a civil court as previously mentioned. The SFIO also has the power to compel disclosure from officers and employees of a company under investigation. Further, the SFIO has the power to arrest and is statutorily empowered to object to the granting of bail to the accused.

IT authorities, similarly, possess civil court powers to compel disclosure of documents, and impose fines for non-compliance. Both IT authorities and the ED can conduct dawn raids via search and seizure, but only if they have reason to believe that the income is or may be concealed within their jurisdiction.

The ED has powers similar to IT authorities under the IT Act, including enforcing exchange control rules, attaching proceeds of crime, summoning, searching and seizing, compelling document production, and making arrests for interrogation. ED statements must be signed by the accused and can be issued in a court of law, unlike police statements.

There is no right to legal counsel during interrogation, although there is a limited right for a lawyer to accompany the accused and remain outside the room to observe, but not to hear, the questioning. The Supreme Court, however, is currently adjudicating a petition where detailed guidelines have been sought regarding the presence of a lawyer during interrogation to prevent incriminating answers.

Law enforcement can trace, freeze, and seize virtual digital assets (VDAs) under the BNSS and the PMLA, owing to the expansive and wide definition of “property” under Section 111(d) of the BNSS. Exercising such powers, the ED on several occasions has attached crypto-assets under the PMLA.

Enforcement authorities in India, including the CBI, have begun using AI-powered technologies such as facial recognition systems, advanced image search tools, crime mapping, analytics and predictive system, Crime GPT (an AI tool for fighting crime adopted by Uttar Pradesh police), and human face detection to enhance investigations.

The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), which has been set up to enhance cyber security in India, is also in the process of adopting AI and blockchain-based technologies for cybersecurity audit tracking and monitoring. However, there are no specific laws or guidelines governing the use of AI by law enforcement in India.

Further, there are no formal regulations governing the use of AI tools by companies in internal investigations. The legitimacy of such internal investigations would depend on compliance with related laws such as data protection laws, and applicable employment laws dealing with employee privacy and confidentiality.

While there is a limited statutory mandate to conduct internal investigations under the Companies Act, there is no overarching requirement to do so. Further, any internal investigation does not bar enforcement authorities from conducting an investigation.

Internal investigations are a good corporate governance tool that may assist the company to subsequently prove bona fide conduct during investigations or trials. If an internal report uncovers that an employee committed fraud without authority and beyond the company’s knowledge, the company may position itself as a witness or victim rather than an accused.

Separately, directors’ fiduciary duties may compel them to initiate internal investigations and to make formal disclosures to authorities through a Director’s Responsibility Statement (DRS). In case of publicly listed companies, directors are also duty-bound to disclose fraudulent acts under listing regulations with SEBI. For publicly listed companies, any forensic audit initiated by a regulator or otherwise must be mandatorily disclosed to the stock exchanges.

While conducting internal investigations, companies should handle employee data in accordance with applicable data protection laws. Personal data that may identify an individual, and sensitive personal data such as passwords, financial information and biometrics, can be taken either with employee consent or for legitimate employment-related purposes, such as safeguarding against loss or liability and preventing corporate espionage.

Internal investigations carried out by a company with the aid of an external legal counsel are protected by legal privilege under Section 132 of the BSA. There is, however, no statutory mandate under Indian law obligating a company to voluntarily share findings of a legally privileged internal investigation with enforcement authorities.

Prosecuting Authorities

Police/CBI/EOW

After an investigation is completed, the BNSS mandates police officials, the CBI, and the EOW to file a report with the jurisdictional court. If the court is satisfied that an offence has been established and sufficient evidence exists to prosecute the accused, the court can take cognisance of the offence and commence trial.

SFIO

The SFIO has to prepare an investigation report/complaint, which must be filed with the central government for approval to initiate prosecution. After this, the report is presented to a special court operating in accordance with the BNSS.

IT authorities

Pursuant to a search and seizure or audit of the books of accounts of a company/individual, the IT authorities must prepare a report and assess the amount of tax evaded by the accused. A notice of demand of such tax is then issued to the relevant individual, who can either pay the amount or challenge the assessment before the IT authorities/tribunal.

CVC

After investigation, the CVC has to submit a report to a commission that recommends further actions to be taken by the department/authorities. Depending on the course of action recommended, prosecution may be initiated before special courts constituted to prosecute matters (as in the case of PCA offences).

ED

If the ED has reasonable grounds, supported by documented evidence, it can arrest, conduct searches and seizures, and attach property suspected to be proceeds of crime. Following the issuance of a provisional attachment order, the ED is required to file a complaint within 30 days with the AA. Once the complaint is filed, properties are attached for 180 days. During this period, the AA may uphold or reject the attachment order. Failure to do so would lead to the setting aside of the attachment. Upon completion of the investigation, the ED must file a complaint.

India does not allow prosecution of offences without trial. Agreements for deferred prosecution or non-prosecution have no legal standing. However, certain offences can be compounded by an accused. These include offences of a less serious nature, such as regulatory filing violations, or a minor offence under the BNS. Offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than seven years, or those involving significant economic consequences, are not compoundable.

Compounding is also permitted for offences punishable with fines under the Companies Act and SEBI regulations. These include false statements made in a board report or annual accounts, violations of securities law and failure to redress investors’ grievances and insider trading. Compounding of such offences can be either before or after the initiation of prosecution.

The relatively recent Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (“JV Act”), decriminalised several offences across various statutes that were previously punishable with imprisonment or fines, or involved prosecution for minor offences/technical and procedural violations. The JV Act now replaces such penalties with monetary fines for contraventions. The JV (Amendment of Provisions) Bill was introduced in 2025 but has not been passed yet.

The Companies Act and the BNS contain provisions related to corporate fraud and criminal company law. They target fraudulent activities, financial misconduct, and breach of trust within corporate structures.

Companies Act, 2013

The Companies Act defines corporate fraud as any act, omission, concealment of fact, or abuse of position by any individual aimed at deceiving or gaining undue advantage at the expense of the company, its shareholders, creditors, or any other person, regardless of whether actual wrongful gain or loss has taken place.

Fraud under the Companies Act is punishable with imprisonment for a minimum term of six months, extendable to ten years, along with a fine of up to three times the amount involved in the fraud. Where the audit of a company is conducted by an audit firm, and a partner of the firm either acts fraudulently or abets the fraud, both the partner and the audit firm may be held jointly and severally liable for civil and criminal consequences.

Where a company is under liquidation or in the process of winding-up, any officer of the company who obstructs the liquidation process by providing false information or concealing the company’s assets will face imprisonment for a term of between three and five years and a fine of between INR100,000 and INR300,000.

Key Offences Under BNS

Criminal breach of trust

For criminal breach of trust, there must be entrustment of property to a person, and that person must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property for their own use. The offence is more severe when the accused holds a fiduciary position – eg, as a director or trustee. A criminal breach of trust is punishable with imprisonment for up to five years, along with a fine, depending on the circumstances.

Cheating

Cheating occurs when a person is deceived fraudulently or dishonestly, which induces them to deliver property or to take any action they would not have otherwise taken. Cheating is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, along with a fine.

Forgery

Forgery involves creating a false document or electronic record with the intention of causing injury or committing fraud. This offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to two years, extendable to three years if the forgery is committed to harm the reputation of any party, and to seven years if the forgery is committed with the intent to cheat.

Falsification of accounts

If an officer, clerk, or servant of a company intentionally destroys, alters, or falsifies the company’s books, papers, or accounts with the intent to defraud, they can be punished for falsification of accounts and face imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, or both.

Dishonest misappropriation of property

This offence occurs when property belonging to another person is appropriated or converted for personal use by the accused with dishonest intent. While punishment for this offence is imprisonment for up to two years, the BNS has for the first time mandated a minimum punishment of six months.

Organised crime and economic offences

Section 111 of the BNS, for the first time, has introduced the offence of organised crime, which means any continuing unlawful activity such as kidnapping, robbery, contract killing, cybercrimes, illegal trafficking of persons and goods, and other crimes by any person or group of persons to obtain direct or indirect material benefit, including financial benefits.

Economic offences, which form part of organised crime, include unlawful activities such as a criminal breach of trust, forgery, counterfeiting, hawala transactions (which essentially mean a system to transfer unaccounted income/cash outside the traditional banking system), and mass marketing fraud carried out to defraud banks, financial institutions or any other institution in order to obtain monetary benefit.

Other Corporate Offences

Corporate fraud and criminal liability are also addressed by other specialised legislation. For instance, SEBI regulations and FEMA deal with corporate offences involving violations of securities laws and foreign exchange regulations, which have been discussed previously.

In India, bribery of foreign public officials and bribery between private parties is not criminalised. The PCA provides the legal framework for corruption and bribery-related offences.

Under the PCA, a “public servant” is broadly defined to include any individual who performs a public duty and is employed by a public, government, or local authority. This extends to employees of private institutions if their functions involve discharging public duties, such as the chairperson of a private bank.

Under the PCA, offering or giving any undue advantage to a public servant, whether directly or through an intermediary, with the intent to induce or reward that public servant for performing or improperly performing a public duty constitutes a criminal offence. It is punishable by imprisonment for a period extending up to seven years, a fine, or both.

Even intermediaries or facilitators who accept bribes with the purpose of influencing a public servant are held criminally liable and punishable with three to seven years of imprisonment.

The definition of “public servant” under the BNS is broader than that under the PCA. Similarly, the BNSS has also introduced the concept of “deemed sanction” for the prosecution of judges and public servants. If the competent authority fails to provide a sanction within 120 days, such sanction will be automatically deemed to have been granted.

The PCA imposes liability on any individual associated with a commercial organisation, including foreign entities operating in India, who offers undue advantage to a public servant to secure an improper business advantage. An “associated person” can be a director, employee, consultant, or any individual whose relationship with the organisation is relevant. The totality of their involvement, not just their formal role, determines liability.

At present, there is no specific obligation to disclose bribery and influence peddling in India. There is, however, a defence available to the bribe giver in the event that they have been compelled to bribe, and after being so compelled, they informed the law enforcement agency within seven days of the act of being compelled.

The PCA recognises that a “commercial organisation” shall not be liable to such prosecution if it is able to prove that it had in place adequate procedures for preventing persons from undertaking such conduct.

The PCA states that the central government shall prescribe such adequate procedures; however, none have been notified to date. Until such time, a commercial organisation may choose to frame its own policies and conduct regular internal training to avail of this defence.

Insider trading is governed by Sections 12A and 15G of the SEBI Act along with the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (“PIT Regulations”).

Regulation 2(1)(g) of the PIT Regulations defines an “insider” as a “connected person” or any person in possession of or having access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), regardless of how the person came into possession or had access to the UPSI. A connected person includes, inter alia, a person sharing a household/residence with a connected person. The definition of a connected person has also been expanded from “immediate relative” to “relative”. Key elements of insider trading include dealing in securities using UPSI, unlawfully communicating UPSI, and counselling or procuring others to trade based on UPSI, except when permitted by law.

Exceptions to this include instances where the communication or procurement of UPSI was carried out for legitimate purposes, performance of duties, or the discharge of legal obligations. While there exists a presumption against the insider, the Supreme Court has held that the same is subject to demonstration of foundational facts by SEBI.

A person found guilty of insider trading faces a minimum penalty of INR1 million, which can be increased up to INR250 million or three times the profit made, whichever amount is higher.

Stock price manipulation is both regulated and criminalised under SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (“PFUTP Regulations”). SEBI prohibits the use or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device or artifice to defraud, and any act of fraud committed in connection with the issue, purchase, or sale of any securities listed or proposed to be listed.

The PFUTP Regulations clarify that any act of diversion, misuse, or siphoning off of assets or earnings of a publicly traded company, as well as any concealment of such acts, is regarded as manipulating the books of accounts or financial statements of the company, which directly or indirectly influence the price of its securities.

Dealing in securities is deemed manipulative or a fraudulent/unfair trade practice if it involves actions such as knowingly creating a false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market, or engaging in transactions intended solely to inflate, depress, or cause fluctuations in the price of a security for wrongful gain or to avoid loss.

Any person who contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of the SEBI Act along with its regulations is punishable with imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine of up to INR250 million, or both.

Criminal Banking Law

In addition to the BNS, there are certain special statutes like the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”). This Act provides for penalties in case of wilfully making or omitting to make material statements under any application, return or statement related to public deposits. Failure to produce books of accounts entails a fine of up to INR2,000 for each offence with an additional fine if the offence persists. Also, any person other than an RBI entity, or as permitted by the government, who draws, accepts, makes, or issues any bill of exchange or promissory note, is punishable with a fine.

The RBI also regulates the affairs of NBFCs and can issue directions in case of non-compliance with directions or provisions of the RBI Act.

The RBI is also the regulatory authority for payment systems under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (“PSS Act”). The PSS Act provides that any person responsible for violation of the PSS Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of between one month and ten years, a fine of up to INR10 million, or both. Upon a repeat offence or failure to comply, the RBI can impose a further fine of up to INR100,000 for every day the contravention continues. Those in charge and responsible for the company’s business at the time of the contravention, along with the company, shall be guilty of the contravention. Under both the RBI Act and the PSS Act, it is only the RBI that can file a complaint with the court.

Separately, there are certain pieces of local legislation that regulate money lending at a state level.

Tax fraud comprises several principal offences, including fraudulently removing, concealing, transferring, or delivering property or any interest with the intent to prevent tax recovery, as well as parting with a company’s property in contravention of the IT Act. It further includes the failure to deposit tax deducted or collected at source, wilful attempts to evade tax, and non-filing of returns where the tax liability exceeds INR10,000.

Additional offences include failure to produce accounts and documents when required by the IT authorities, non-compliance with auditing directives, failure to furnish returns in search cases, abetment to filing false returns/accounts/declarations, and making false statements to evade taxes, penalties, or interest.

Punishments include fines, or imprisonment of between two months and seven years along with a fine, depending on the nature of the offence.

The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (“Black Money Act”) prohibits non-disclosure of foreign income or assets. Offences under this legislation are punishable with fines and imprisonment for between six months and seven years.

In case of prosecution, culpable mental state is presumed, unless the defendant proves otherwise. Culpable mental state includes intention, motive or knowledge of a fact or belief in such, or reason to believe a fact.

The Companies Act mandates a company to maintain its books of accounts for a period of up to eight preceding financial years. If there is an enquiry or investigation pending against the company under the Companies Act, the company may be required to maintain its books of accounts for a longer period of time.

The managing director, the whole-time director in charge of finance, the CFO, or any other person charged with the duty of complying with the requirements of maintaining the books of account and financial statement of the company is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year, fines between INR50,000 and INR500,000, or both.

If the concerned officer is found to maintain false books of accounts, they may, depending on the facts and allegations, be subject to the various offences mentioned in 3.1 Criminal Company Law and Corporate Fraud.

The PMLA also mandates that every person or entity that falls under the definition of “reporting entity” shall maintain a record of all transactions, documents evidencing the identity of its clients and beneficial owners as well as account files and business correspondence relating to its clients for a period of five years from the date of transaction, or five years after the end of the business relationship or close of the account, whichever is later. A recent amendment has expanded the definition of “reporting entity” under the PMLA to include chartered accountants, company secretaries, certified management accountants and virtual digital asset service providers (VDASPs) for certain transactions.

Cartelisation and anti-competitive practices are regulated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) constituted under the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act), which provides for civil penalties and only provides for criminal liability in cases of non-compliance with orders/directions issued under the Competition Act.

Under the Competition Act, agreements relating to the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods, or provision of services, that cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India are prohibited and void. An enterprise imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions or prices (including predatory pricing) in the purchase or sale of goods or services would be regarded as abusing its dominant position.

The CCI may impose a penalty of up to 10% of the average turnover of the enterprise for the three preceding financial years.

In case of an anti-competitive agreement entered into by a cartel, the CCI may impose a penalty of up to three times its profit for each year of the continuance of such agreement or 10% of its turnover for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher.

Further, failure to comply with the orders/directions of the CCI is punishable with a fine of up to INR100,000 for each day of non-compliance, subject to a maximum of INR10 million. Failure to comply with the orders/directions or failure to pay the fine is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of up to INR250 million, or both.

The CCI can also recover compensation from any enterprise for any loss or damage caused due to violations of directions issued by the CCI or contravention of any decision/order of the CCI. The appellate tribunal, under Section 53Q of the Competition Act, has similar powers.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA), which deals with consumer protection in India:

• the offence of false or misleading advertisement prejudicial to the interest of consumers is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to INR1 million – every subsequent offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to INR5 million; and

• the offence of manufacturing products containing adulterants, for sale or storing, selling or distributing or importing, is punishable with imprisonment for a term of six months to life, along with a fine ranging from INR100,000 to INR1 million, depending on the nature of the injury caused.

Non-compliance with orders of the central authority under the CPA is punishable with imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to INR2 million, or both.

Cybercrimes are primarily governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “InTech Act”). The BNS also provides for general offences – such as theft and criminal breach of trust – which could be invoked in relation to cyber offences.

Section 111 of BNS, for the first time, provides for cybercrimes as part of a larger offence of “organised crime”. The BNS, however, does not define “cybercrimes”.

Section 1(5) of the BNS provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute any person within and beyond India committing an offence targeting a computer resource located in India. Section 48 of the BNS expands the extraterritorial reach by making abetment by a person outside India of an offence committed within India punishable.

In addition, while the InTech Act provides for specific offences targeting computer networks, offences which are not specifically covered under the InTech Act can be prosecuted under the BNS. However, for offences that fall within the scope of both statutes, the InTech Act will prevail over the BNS.

Hacking and Data Theft

A number of actions, ranging from hacking, data theft, virus attacks, causing damage to computer networks, destroying/denying access to authorised persons, and tampering with/manipulating computer systems, are prohibited under the InTech Act. The maximum punishment for the above offences is imprisonment for up to three years and/or a fine of up to INR500,000.

The InTech Act also prescribes punishment for dishonestly receiving a stolen computer resource or communication device, which may result in imprisonment for up to three years and/or a fine of up to INR100,000.

Sending, by computer or communication device, any information that is grossly offensive, menacing, or knowingly false with the intention of causing annoyance, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, or issuing emails to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or to deceive or mislead about the origin of such messages, is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years and a fine.

Fraudulent or dishonest use of an electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of a person is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to three years and a fine of up to INR100,000.

Indian foreign trade/customs laws establish restrictions on the import/export of specified items from certain countries and entities. Some regulated commodities may be subject to quantity controls. Commodities on the List of Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment, and Technologies (“SCOMET List”) or covered under multilateral treaties and arrangements are subject to control and require central government permission.

Trade sanctions on countries or entities usually stem from UN resolutions, other international organisations, sanctions, and embargoes. UN-based sanctions are enforceable under the United Nations (Security Council) Act 1947, empowering India to implement UNSC sanctions. Sanctions are typically effected through Foreign Trade Policy amendments, managed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (“FTDR Act”).

Under the FTDR Act, any person who attempts, makes or abets the import or export of goods, technology, or services in contravention of prohibitions or restrictions specified in the Act or notified in the FTP, commits an offence. Penalties are administrative, comprising a minimum fine of INR1,000 up to five times the value of the goods or technology, and the suspension or cancellation of the Importer-Exporter Code issued by the DGFT.

Similarly, the Customs Act addresses smuggling and duty evasion through criminal offences under Sections 132–135A. To constitute an offence, there must be: (i) prohibited or dutiable goods as defined by customs notifications; (ii) intent to evade customs duty or import/export restrictions; and (iii) acts such as carrying, concealing, removing, or dealing with such goods. Fines and/or terms of imprisonment may be imposed for contravention of the Customs Act.

Restrictions on imports from or exports to specified countries, organisations, or entities are typically aligned with UN Security Council Resolutions or other international regimes, such as those administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Under the BNS, whoever intends to facilitate, or knowingly causes the facilitation of the commission of, an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any means, the existence of a design to commit such offence or makes any representation which they know to be false in respect of such design, shall:

• if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to seven years and a fine; or
• if the offence is not committed, with imprisonment for a term of up to three years and a fine.

When the concealment is carried out with respect to any other offence punishable with imprisonment, such concealment is punishable with imprisonment for a period of one-fourth of the longest term of such imprisonment if the offence is committed, and one-eighth of the longest term of such imprisonment if the offence is not committed.

In cases of common intent offences, the BNS upholds the principle of joint liability. This means that if two or more individuals are involved in the commission of an offence, each participant is treated as if they committed the act individually. Consequently, all parties may be held liable for the offence committed, regardless of the extent of their involvement.

Thus, if an offence occurs as a result of the abettor’s instigation or assistance, the abettor is punishable in the same manner as the principal offender. Under the BNSS, a person who conspires with or assists another to commit a corporate offence can be held liable. The BNS has expanded the concept of abetment to include foreign entities: abetment within India of an offence committed abroad, and abetment from outside India of a crime committed within India, are both now punishable under the BNS.

A conspiracy occurs when two or more persons agree to perform an illegal act or to carry out a legal act using illegal means. Under the BNS, any individual involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more will face the same penalties as if they had abetted the offence. Certain statutes, such as the PCA, impose additional liabilities for abetment in corporate offences.

The PMLA is India’s primary legislation dealing with the offence of money laundering, with the ED being the relevant prosecution agency. The PMLA is based on the international anti-money laundering initiative by the FATF. In order to invoke the PMLA, the ED needs to establish two foundational facts: (i) that a scheduled offence has been committed (which includes offences under the BNS, anti-narcotics laws, anti-terrorism laws, and evasion of indirect tax); and (ii) that it has resulted in the generation of “proceeds of crime” (PoC).

PoC refers to any property that has been derived as a result of the predicate offence. The test here is that the property should have been derived as a result of the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form, be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of PoC, or claiming it to be untainted property. Any involvement in even one of these processes or activities would constitute money laundering.

Under Section 3 of the PMLA, any person who directly or indirectly attempts, assists, participates, or is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime shall be guilty of the offence of money laundering. Such involvement includes the concealment, possession, acquisition, or use of the proceeds of crime, as well as projecting or claiming such proceeds to be untainted property.

In the event that the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally discharged, acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction, or if the scheduled offence is quashed, then PMLA prosecution falls away. The offence of money laundering is considered to be a continuing offence, the cause of action for which renews with every day of the possession of PoC.

For details on prosecution and enforcement authorities, refer to 2.6 Prosecution.

Environmental offences in India are principally governed by the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EPA). The EPA penalises violations of environmental norms, including breaches of rules framed by the central government related to industrial operations, handling hazardous substances, and disclosure requirements for excess pollution discharge. Notably, every person who was directly in charge of and responsible for the affairs of a company at the time of the contravention may be held personally liable for environmental offences.

There are sector-specific rules such as the Hazardous Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, and E-Waste Management Rules, 2022.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, contain prohibitions and restrictions on water and air pollutant discharge, prescribing penalties, including fines and imprisonment for wilful contraventions. These environmental obligations have been linked to the broader principles of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine, emphasising company accountability for pollution and sustainable operations.

Notably, Section 166 of the Companies Act imposes a statutory duty on directors to protect the environment. Failure to comply with the duties set out in Section 166(2), including the duty to safeguard the environment, may attract a fine of up to INR500,000.

While explicit laws mandating supply chain compliance for social issues like modern slavery are not codified, SEBI, under its Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting mandate, requires transparency on social metrics, including environmental risks, labour practices, and materials sourced from suppliers.

SEBI has introduced new guidelines to regulate algorithmic trading – ie, any type of automated rule-based trading. This includes high-frequency trading (HFT) which is used to ensure a high daily portfolio turnover and high order-to-trade ratio. Any facility/strategy for algorithmic trading must be approved by the stock exchange, and only application programming interfaces (APIs) provided by brokers can be used. SEBI has banned all open APIs. All algorithmic strategy providers are mandated to be empanelled with stock exchanges.

As detailed in 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law, SEBI prohibits the use or employment of any manipulative/deceptive device/artifice to defraud in connection with the issue, purchase, or sale of any securities listed or proposed to be listed. This could include use of algorithmic trading if it leads to “manipulative, fraudulent, and an unfair trade practice” in the securities market. Any person who contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of such acts can be punished with imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine of up to INR250 million, or both.

There is no legislation in India that specifically deals with crypto-assets. While the government of India introduced the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021, to prohibit private crypto-assets and create a framework for a digital currency issued by the RBI, this has not materialised into substantive legislation.

Under criminal law, crypto-assets have not been expressly classified as either securities or commodities. Indian courts have also not yet ruled on whether crypto-assets qualify as “movable property” under the BNS. However, law enforcement agencies have in practice treated crypto-assets as movable property, initiating investigations for property-related offences such as theft under the BNS.

Crypto-assets have not been recognised as digital currencies by the RBI. However, the RBI has, through its circular dated 31 May 2021, advised its regulated entities to continue to carry out customer due diligence processes for transactions in VDAs, in line with regulations governing standards for know-your-customer (KYC), anti-money laundering, and the combating of the financing of terrorism obligations under the PMLA.

In March 2023, the government of India formally brought cryptocurrency and VDAs under the regulatory ambit of the PMLA. VDASPs are included within the ambit of reporting entities (REs) under the PMLA. These include entities that deal with cryptocurrencies and/or VDAs through exchange, transfer, safe-keeping and any other participation in providing financial services related to such assets. VDASPs are required to be registered as an RE with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and must comply with reporting requirements. VDASPs must report details of all transactions, including suspicious transactions with the FIU within the prescribed timelines.

Failure to comply with these reporting requirements can attract a show-cause notice from the FIU director for non-compliance and penalties ranging from INR10,000 to INR100,000 for each violation.

Various sectoral regulators, such as SEBI, have laid down guidelines on KYC and anti-money laundering compliance. These guidelines and the SEBI Act allow revocation of licences of reporting entities in case of non-compliance.

A strong defence strategy for a criminal offence has two hallmarks:

• the version of facts pleaded needs to be plausible; and
• the version of facts must be backed by credible and admissible evidence.

During trial, an accused person has a chance to establish their defence against the charges brought by the prosecution, including by cross-examining witnesses and bringing witnesses of their own.

The burden of proof must be discharged beyond all reasonable doubt. The onus of proof rests on the prosecution. Even in cases where there is a reverse burden of proof, such as under the PMLA, the prosecution still needs to prove the foundational facts.

Defendants may also challenge the chain of custody of evidence or procedural irregularities under the BNSS. The two statutes have ample safeguards and provisions regarding the procedure for the seizure of case-related property and articles.

In cases under the PCA, a company accused of vicarious liability can defend itself by proving it had adequate compliance procedures in place to prevent persons associated with it from undertaking such conduct. Similarly, in prosecutions involving vicarious liability, an individual may avoid punishment by demonstrating that they were not in charge of or responsible for the contravention, or that it occurred without their knowledge, or that they exercised due diligence to prevent such contravention.

There are no general de minimis exceptions for white-collar offences. However, some statutes impose reporting thresholds or define liability based on minimum value criteria – for example, monetary thresholds under the PMLA or tax laws. Similarly, under the PCA, gifts below INR5,000 received by a public servant are not considered bribes.

The BNS statutorily prescribes general exceptions, which are the defences provided to the accused that absolve criminal liability. Under Indian law, acts or omissions by children, a person of unsound mind, committed by a person justified by law, committed under the influence of intoxication, by a person in good faith, or acts committed by a person under threat or duress are either exempt from prosecution or prosecuted to a lesser degree than what the offence would have otherwise attracted.

However, the threshold for successfully invoking these exceptions is high. The accused must present credible evidence demonstrating that the mitigating circumstances or influences genuinely existed, and the court will draw inferences based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

Plea bargaining is permitted in limited circumstances. It is not allowed in cases where the prescribed punishment is death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. Plea bargaining also does not apply where the offence affects the socio-economic condition of the country or has been committed against a woman, or a child under the age of 14 years.

A person accused of an offence may file a plea-bargaining application in the jurisdictional court with a brief description of the facts of the case. A prerequisite for such an application is that the accused person has not previously been convicted of the same offence by a court. After understanding the nature and extent of punishment provided by the law for the offence, the application is voluntarily preferred.

Once the court is satisfied the application is voluntary, it allows time for the prosecutor and complainant to mutually resolve the matter. Upon such resolution, the court awards compensation to the victim and may impose half or one-fourth of the minimum punishment after hearing the parties.

Every person must co-operate with investigation agencies, providing requested materials, information, or documents, and appear when summoned to give statements or submit evidence.

There is also a legal duty to furnish correct and accurate information to the investigation officer. Failure of such duty is punishable under law. However, the constitutional right against self-incrimination is an exception. Further, except for certain offences listed under Section 33 of the BNSS, or any other law requiring active disclosure, there is no general duty to disclose the commission of an offence.

If an accused pleads guilty voluntarily before or during trial, the court may exercise discretion to impose a lighter sentence, provided it does not fall below the minimum statutory limit for that offence, except where plea bargaining provisions apply.

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act establishes a mechanism for receiving complaints relating to disclosure of allegations of corruption or wilful misuse of power by public servants and providing adequate safeguards against victimisation. While the Act was notified in May 2014, it is yet to be enacted. One of the drawbacks of the Act is that it does not cover corporate whistle-blowers.

There are certain other voluntary mechanisms in India to deal with whistle-blowing. The SEBI Act mandates that every listed company must have a whistle-blower policy in place. SEBI has also introduced a reward mechanism from 2019 onwards to encourage employees of listed companies to come forward with their concerns.

In 2020, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs implemented a new format for conducting statutory audits of companies, known as the Company Auditors Report Order, 2020, which is applicable for audits beginning from FY 2021–2022. The auditor of the company is now obligated to generate reports regarding whistle-blower complaints filed against the company during the said financial year.

The Companies Act also creates an obligation on auditors to report fraud in the company they are auditing. Failure to do so shall render such auditor ineligible to be appointed an auditor of any company for a period of five years and liable for fraud under the Companies Act.

In addition, the BNSS, for the first time, has provided for witness protection schemes to be notified by a state government. Moreover, under the BNSS, withdrawal of prosecution can now only take place with the prior permission of the complainant (which can include a whistle-blower). This allows a whistle-blower to be a formal participant in proceedings before the concerned criminal court.

When white-collar investigations or prosecutions span across multiple jurisdictions, defence strategies are often significantly impacted. A central challenge lies in the need to maintain consistency and coherence across jurisdictions. Accordingly, defence strategies, if co-ordinated, can ensure that the positions taken in each jurisdiction remain uniform, while still tailored to the specific procedural and substantive requirements of that jurisdiction. A co-ordinated defence strategy must also carefully assess the implications of disclosure obligations in each jurisdiction.

The defence strategy in respect of white-collar offences will necessarily be shaped by the specific defences available under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the investigation is being conducted.

The Supreme Court is slated to commence hearing of a review petition against the landmark decision of Vijay Madanlal Choudhury v Union of India, [2022] 6 SCR 382, which upheld the constitutional validity of the PMLA. The petition raises various critical constitutional issues relating to the validity of the reverse burden of proof, the obligation of the ED to provide the accused with an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed against them, and other things.

The Supreme Court is presently considering the applicability of Section 223 of the BNSS to chargesheets for which cognisance was taken prior to 1 July 2024. This is a very important issue given that Section 223 of the BNSS introduces, for the first time, a substantive right for the accused to be heard before any cognisance is taken on a chargesheet.