The criminal law regime in India underwent a major overhaul in 2024. Repealing the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is now the primary legislation enumerating general criminal offences and prescribing punishment.

Similarly, the previous Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have been repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), respectively.

Cognisable offences are considered serious offences for which a police officer may arrest without a court warrant. For non-cognisable offences, court permission is required.

Bailable offences entitle the arrested person to bail as of right upon furnishing a bond. In non-bailable offences, bail must be sought from the court and is granted at the court’s discretion.

Compoundable offences may be settled between the complainant and the accused. The BNSS permits compounding with or without court involvement, although some offences require the court’s permission. Serious and certain socio-economic offences are non-compoundable. However, courts may use their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash even non-compoundable proceedings to serve justice or prevent an 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/guilty intention (the accused must be proven to have knowingly committed the crime, with full knowledge of their actions, and must have mala fide intent). However, with certain heinous crimes such as rape, the act itself is sufficient; and
• actus reus/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 reverses the onus, the prosecution must prove its case against the accused “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

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 a reverse burden of proof has been upheld under the PMLA (Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary v Directorate of Enforcement (2023) 12 SCC 1) as well as under statutes dealing with terrorism, organised crime, drug offences, and sexual violence against children. Even in such cases, the prosecution must first establish foundational facts before the reverse onus is triggered. However, the Supreme Court is currently reconsidering its previous decision in Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary, in which it upheld the constitutional validity of the reverse burden of proof under the PMLA.

The BNSS prescribes limitation periods for the prosecution of certain offences, based on the maximum punishment, which are as follows:

• six months from commission of offences punishable only with a fine;
• one year for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to one year;
• three years for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than one year and up to three years; and
• no limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years.

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.

For an undetected offence, the date of commission is the date on which it becomes known. If the perpetrator is then unknown, the relevant date is the date on which the perpetrator’s identity is revealed.

Limitation expires when the investigation report or complaint is filed in court. For continuing offences, a fresh period begins to run at every moment during which the offence continues. For offences tried together, limitation is determined by the offence carrying the higher penalty.

Sections 3 and 4 of the BNS, read with Section 208 of the BNSS, recognise the extraterritorial application of Indian criminal law. An Indian citizen may be punished for an offence committed abroad, and a person abroad for an offence committed in India under the BNS. Section 48 of the BNS also makes it an offence to abet a crime in India from outside the country.

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

Specialised economic-offence legislation, including the PMLA, similarly supports cross-border investigations through bilateral assistance with notified countries.

The Delhi High Court has held that when a request is received for assistance from any foreign authority, the ED can take any step, including investigation, for executing such request under Section 60 of the PMLA (Adnan Nisar v Directorate of Enforcement (ED) (2024 SCC Online Del 6498).

The BNSS recognises reciprocal arrangements for the service of summons and warrants, the conduct of investigations, the collection of evidence, and the attachment and forfeiture of property. Recently, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has held that the SFIO, once authorised by the central government, can initiate attachment and disgorgement proceedings (BSR & Associates LLP v SFIO, 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1059).

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

India has bilateral arrangements for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Under the BNSS, a court, or a police officer through the court, may issue summonses requiring a person to appear or produce materials relevant to an investigation, enquiry, or trial.

India has MLATs with 39 countries, enabling service of summonses to persons in their territory. The MLAT route requires dual criminality. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is the nodal ministry and central authority for all such assistance.

For countries not covered by an MLAT, the MHA may request assistance on the basis of reciprocity through the relevant diplomatic mission or embassy, although the requested country is not obliged to comply.

Letters rogatory (LR) are generally used where no MLAT exists. They are requests from a court in one country to a court in another for assistance in investigating or prosecuting criminal matters. The BNSS prescribes the issuance of LR by a competent court at an investigating officer’s or agency’s request. For non-reciprocating territories, the agency must obtain the MHA’s concurrence before approaching the court. Once issued, LR are sent to the MHA and transmitted through the Ministry of External Affairs to the foreign state’s central authority.

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

Recently, acting on an incoming MLAT request from a southern African country, the ED has seized assets linked to proceeds of crime (committed abroad) and laundered into India, recorded an ECIR, and conducted multi-city searches seizing incriminating documents and devices. Pursued through multiagency channels such as the StAR–World Bank GFAR Series and Basel's ICAR framework, the ED has assisted requests from foreign States to recover proceeds of corruption routed into India.

Extradition

The Indian Extradition Act, 1962, governs extradition. Where no bilateral treaty exists, the central government may, by notified order, treat a convention to which India and the foreign state are parties as an extradition treaty. Recently, the DHC has for the first time held that a person facing extradition proceedings can seek anticipatory bail and there is no bar for such relief under the the Extradition Act. (Shankesh Mutha v Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4609).

India currently 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 organisations and frameworks providing mutual assistance in enforcement, including the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), which facilitate the sharing of data on crimes and criminals, while providing technical and operational support.

India has been a FATF member since 2010. The FATF has commended India’s efforts against illicit finance, placing it in the “regular follow-up” category, which is the highest rating. It 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 crime, including terrorism, narcotics, money laundering, and cybercrime.

INTERPOL notices sought by Indian law-enforcement agencies have risen sharply. In the first nine months of 2025, the CBI (India’s National Central Bureau for INTERPOL) published 189 INTERPOL notices, including 79 Red Notices and 110 Blue Notices. The BharatPol portal, launched in January 2025, reduces the average time taken to send proposals to INTERPOL for publication from about 14 months to approximately three months.

On 21 August 2025, the ED issued its first Purple Notice through INTERPOL, notifying 196 member states of a new trade-based money laundering modus operandi discovered during investigations. As of 31 March 2026, the ED had promptly responded to 227 requests out of the 246 informal requests it had received.

Indian law-enforcement agencies participate in cross-border actions with international partners. In 2025, an ED–US Department of Justice (DOJ) probe under the India-US MLAT dismantled a narcotics network that laundered more than USD150 million through cryptocurrency and dark-web marketplaces. In July 2025, the Delhi High Court, in JK Tyre v ED, quashed an ED freezing action requested by Brazil and directed the ED to unfreeze JK Tyre’s bank accounts.

Corporate criminal liability arises through attribution, under which the mens rea of directors or other persons responsible for the company’s affairs is attributed to the entity. Without a statute recognising vicarious liability, attribution does not make directors or persons in charge liable; nor is a company liable for employees’ acts unless a specific provision applies or the company abetted the act.

While certain special statutes impose preventive and oversight obligations on corporations and their officials, non-compliance does not itself constitute an offence, and no standalone corporate offence exists for failing to prevent an employee’s wrongdoing.

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

Agencies such as the CBI, ED and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) increasingly identify accused persons in corporate crimes from statutory filings, including promoters, directors and senior officials. Prosecution is confined to those responsible for the entity's affairs, and courts have struck down overbroad investigations implicating unconnected persons or third parties.

A parent company is not liable for a subsidiary’s criminal acts unless evidence shows that it actively directed or controlled the subsidiary’s operations and participated in the unlawful conduct.

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

India has no formal sentencing policy. Courts have broad sentencing discretion, subject to statutory minimums.

The BNS provides for imprisonment, fines, forfeiture of property and other punishments. It introduces community service for first-time offenders under Sections 202, 209, 226, 303, 355 and 356.

Under the BNS, parliament has mandated minimum punishments for certain offences such as theft and dishonest misappropriation of property. The BNS has increased the penalties 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 instead of or alongside imprisonment. Statutes set maximum fines; where no sum is specified, the fine is unlimited, subject to the principle that it must 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.

The Supreme Court requires that sentences reflect the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Corporate culture and remediation efforts are not typically relevant to sentencing. However, co-operation with investigators, voluntary disclosure, restitution to affected parties, and a clean prior record may serve as mitigating factors.

Courts have wide discretion to award compensation at the time of sentencing, subject to the conditions under the BNSS. The amount depends on the gravity of the offence, the victim’s loss, and the offender’s ability to pay.

If the offender cannot pay, the court may require the state to pay from the victim compensation fund, although most states have not implemented such a policy. Fines may range from the alleged amount involved to multiples of it; for example, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 2002 (FEMA), permits 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.

Section 107(6) and (7) of BNSS introduces the distribution of monies realised from the liquidation or sale of an attached property identified as the proceeds of a crime, on a rateable basis among the victims of such crime.

Indian law does not provide for class actions 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 matters of public importance. The designated special courts try cases investigated by the CBI.

The ED investigates contraventions of Indian exchange-control laws and anti-money-laundering regulations. Its cases are adjudicated by Adjudicating Authorities (AA) established under FEMA and the PMLA; appeals from AA orders under either statute lie to a specialised appellate tribunal.

The SFIO investigates offences under the Companies Act, 2013 (the “Companies Act”). Other agencies must await the completion of its investigation. It may share information on offences beyond its scope and obtain information from other agencies. 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 detects and curbs smuggling and commercial fraud related to international trade and evasion of customs duty. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) collects and disseminates intelligence on the evasion of goods and services tax (GST) and central excise duty.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) advises its agencies on vigilance matters and receives complaints of corruption or misappropriation. Matters it investigates and recommends are tried by courts designated for PCA offences.

State Agencies

Each state/union territory’s local police force maintains law and order, registers complaints and investigates crimes. Its Economic Offence Wing (EOW) handles economic offences including banking and housing crimes, corporate fraud, general cheating, and crimes involving the securities 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

Authorities investigating the same offence have defined jurisdictions. The SFIO investigates Companies Act offences and may also investigate IPC (now BNS) offences (R.K. Gupta v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8197).

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 has no civil enforcement mechanisms beyond certain disclosure duties and tort-law restitution. However, the SEBI Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) permit claw-back or disgorgement of benefits unduly received by the offender.

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 mandatory before investigating a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three but less than seven years. It must be completed within 14 days and requires the investigating officer to determine whether a prima facie case exists ‒ a higher threshold than the previous requirement merely to verify that a cognisable offence had been identified.

The registration of a first information report (FIR) formally commences an investigation. Section 173 permits the registration of a Zero FIR at any police station, regardless of where the offence occurred, but it must be forwarded to the station with territorial jurisdiction. The MHA’s Standard Operating Procedure (MHA SOP) sets out procedures for registration of Zero FIRs and e-FIRs and for conducting preliminary enquiries.

Section 173 has introduced the concept of an e-FIR, whereby a complaint is submitted electronically through 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.

A court may direct an investigation if police fail to register an FIR. Prosecution of a public servant for bribery or corruption requires prior government sanction.

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” have been generated through the commission of a scheduled offence.

The CBI and SFIO cannot independently initiate investigations; the central government must authorise them or a court must direct them to do so. The SFIO may, however, investigate a company’s affairs in the public interest, subject to shareholder approval.

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

The police, EOW and CBI may summon persons, conduct searches and seizures, compel document production and arrest accused persons for questioning. They may require any employee, officer or director of a company to join the investigation.

Failure to join may be treated as non-co-operation and, in some cases, grounds for arrest. Section 94 of the BNSS permits the authorities to compel the production of communication devices, raising issues about confidential, personal, sensitive and legally privileged information.

Once the new data protection regime comes into force in May 2027, the central government will have the power to seek personal data for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences, alongside exemptions related to the security of the state.

The BNSS requires search proceedings to be conducted 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 a mirror copy of the audiovisual record with a chain-of-custody record 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 possesses all the powers of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, compelling document production, and examining persons under oath.

The SFIO has the powers or an inspector under the Companies Act, including compelling disclosure from officers and employees of a company under investigation, arresting accused persons and objecting to bail.

IT authorities possess similar civil court powers and may impose fines for non-compliance. Both IT authorities and the ED can conduct dawn raids where they have reason to believe that income may be concealed. The ED may also enforce exchange control rules, attach proceeds of crime, and make arrests for questioning. ED statements must be signed by the accused and are admissible in court, 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 has clarified that Section 38 of the BNSS confers a right to meet counsel but not a right to continuous presence during interrogation (State of A.P. v Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1389).

Law enforcement can trace, freeze, and seize virtual digital assets (VDAs) under the BNSS and the PMLA, owing to the expansive 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.

Indian enforcement authorities, including the CBI, use AI-powered facial recognition, advanced image search, crime mapping, analytics and predictive systems, Crime GPT (adopted by the Uttar Pradesh Police), and human-face detection to enhance investigations.

The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), which was established to enhance cybersecurity in India, is also in the process of adopting AI- and blockchain-based technologies for cybersecurity audit tracking and monitoring. However, no specific laws or comprehensive guidelines governing the use of AI by law enforcement have been enacted.

The legitimacy of such internal investigations depends on compliance with data-protection and applicable employment laws governing employee privacy and confidentiality.

There is no overarching statutory requirement to conduct internal investigations, though limited mandates exist under the Companies Act. An internal investigation does not bar enforcement authorities from conducting their own investigation.

Internal investigations serve as a governance tool. If an internal report reveals that an employee committed fraud without the company’s knowledge, the company may position itself as a witness or victim, rather than as an accused.

Directors’ fiduciary duties may require them to initiate internal investigations and to make formal disclosures through a Directors’ Responsibility Statement (DRS). For publicly listed companies, directors must disclose fraudulent acts under SEBI listing regulations, and any forensic audit must be disclosed to the stock exchanges.

While conducting internal investigations, companies should handle personal data in accordance with the DPDP Act, once it comes into force in May 2027. Personal data processed during internal investigations must be handled in compliance with the DPDP Act’s notice-and-consent requirements, subject to exemptions for legitimate employment-related purposes.

Internal investigations conducted with external legal counsel are protected by legal privilege under Section 132 of the BSA. Indian law does not require a company to share the findings of a legally privileged 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 that sufficient evidence exists to prosecute the accused, the court can take cognisance of the offence and commence the trial.

SFIO

The SFIO is required to prepare an investigation report or complaint, which must be filed with the central government for approval to initiate prosecution. The report is then presented to a special court operating under the BNSS. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the right of an accused person to be heard before cognisance is taken under Section 223 of BNSS is applicable to SFIO prosecutions under the Companies Act, 2013 (Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v Serious Fraud Investigation Office (2026)).

IT authorities

Pursuant to a search and seizure or an 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 for 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 action to be taken by the department/authorities. Depending on the course of action recommended, prosecution may be initiated before special courts constituted to prosecute such matters (as in the case of PCA offences).

ED

On reasonable grounds supported by documentary evidence, the ED may arrest, search and seize, and attach property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. After issuing a provisional attachment order, it must file a complaint with the AA within 30 days. The property remains attached for 180 days after the filing; the AA may uphold or reject the order, and failure to decide within this period sets it aside. On completing the investigation, the ED must file a complaint.

India does not permit prosecution without trial, and deferred- or non-prosecution agreements have no legal standing. An accused may compound certain less serious offences, including regulatory filing violations and minor BNS offences. Offences punishable by more than seven years’ imprisonment or involving significant economic consequences are not compoundable.

Compounding is also permitted for certain offences under the Companies Act and SEBI regulations, including false statements in board reports, violations of securities laws, and insider trading. Such compounding may occur before or after the initiation of prosecution.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (the “JV Act”) decriminalised several minor, technical and procedural offences across statutes, replacing imprisonment or prosecution with monetary fines for contraventions. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, passed in April 2026, amends 80 central statutes to decriminalise further minor offences and replace criminal penalties with civil monetary sanctions. It builds on the JV Act, which covered 42 statutes.

The Companies Act and BNS address corporate fraud and criminal company law, targeting fraudulent activity, financial misconduct and breaches 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 a partner of an audit firm acts fraudulently or abets fraud, both the partner and the firm may be held jointly and severally liable.

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

The offence requires entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use. It is more serious where the accused holds a fiduciary position, such as a director or trustee, and is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine, depending on the circumstances.

Cheating

Cheating occurs when a person is fraudulently or dishonestly deceived, 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. It is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, three years where it is intended to harm reputation, and seven years where it is intended 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

For the first time, Section 111 of the BNS introduces organised crime: continuing unlawful activity, including kidnapping, robbery, contract killing, cybercrime, trafficking of persons or goods and other crimes, by a person or group seeking direct or indirect material benefit, including financial benefit.

Economic offences, which form part of organised crime, include unlawful activities such as 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, as discussed previously.

India does not criminalise bribery of foreign public officials or between private parties. The PCA governs corruption and bribery-related offences.

The PCA broadly defines a “public servant” to include any individual performing a public duty for a government or local authority. The definition extends to employees of private institutions discharging public functions, such as the chairperson of a private bank.

Offering or giving a public servant an undue advantage, directly or through an intermediary, to induce or reward the performance or improper performance of a public duty is a criminal offence punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment, a fine or both.

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

The definition of “public servant” under the BNS is broader than that under the PCA. Similarly, the BNSS provides that if the competent authority fails to grant a sanction within 120 days, such sanction will be automatically deemed to have been granted.

The PCA imposes liability on anyone associated with a commercial organisation, including a foreign entity operating in India, who offers a public servant an undue advantage to obtain an improper business advantage. An “associated person” may be a director, employee, consultant or anyone whose relationship with the organisation is relevant; liability depends on the person’s involvement, not merely their formal role.

India has no specific obligation to disclose bribery or influence peddling. A compelled bribe-giver has a defence if they inform law enforcement within seven days of being compelled to give the bribe.

The PCA exempts a “commercial organisation” from prosecution if it proves that it had adequate procedures (to be prescribed) to prevent such conduct. The government has not prescribed such procedures.

Insider trading is governed by the SEBI Act along with the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (the “PIT Regulations”).

The PIT Regulations define an “insider” as a “connected person” or anyone possessing or accessing unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), regardless of how it was obtained. A connected person includes, inter alia, a person sharing a household or residence with a connected person, including a “relative”. Insider trading includes dealing in securities using UPSI, unlawfully communicating it, or counselling or procuring others to trade on the basis of it, unless permitted by law.

Communication or procurement of UPSI is permitted where they are undertaken for a legitimate purpose, in the performance of duties, or in the discharge of legal obligations. Although, a presumption operates against the insider, the Supreme Court has held that SEBI must first establish the foundational facts.

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.

The SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (the “PFUTP Regulations”) regulate and criminalise stock-price manipulation. SEBI prohibits manipulative or deceptive devices or artifices used to defraud and fraud connected with issuing, purchasing or selling listed or proposed-to-be-listed securities.

Diversion, misuse or siphoning of a listed company’s assets or earnings, and concealment, constitute manipulation of its books or financial statements where they influence securities prices.

Transactions are manipulative or fraudulent/unfair trade practices if they create a false or misleading appearance of trading or are intended solely to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in a security’s price for wrongful gain or to avoid loss.

A person who contravenes, attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of the SEBI Act or the regulations made thereunder may face imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine of up to INR250 million, or both.

Criminal Banking Law

The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (the “RBI Act”) penalises wilful material misstatements or omissions in applications, returns or statements relating to public deposits. Failure to produce books attracts a fine of up to INR2,000 per offence, with a further fine for continuing offences. Unauthorised drawing, acceptance, making or issue of a bill of exchange or promissory note is also punishable by a fine. The RBI regulates NBFCs and may issue directions for non-compliance with the RBI Act or its directions.

Under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (the “PSS Act”), a violation is punishable with imprisonment for a term of between one month and ten years, a fine of up to INR10 million, or both. Repeat offences or continuing contraventions may attract a further fine of up to INR100,000 for each day. The company and the persons in charge of its business are liable, and only the RBI may file a complaint with the court. State legislation separately regulates money lending.

Tax fraud includes fraudulently removing, concealing, transferring or delivering property or an interest therein to prevent tax recovery, and parting with company property contrary to the IT Act. It also includes failure to deposit tax deducted or collected at source, wilful tax evasion and failure to file returns where the tax liability exceeds INR10,000.

Additional offences include failure to produce accounts when required, non-compliance with audit directives, failure to furnish returns in search cases, and abetting or making false statements to evade taxes. Punishments range from fines to imprisonment for between two months and seven years.

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

On prosecution, a culpable mental state is presumed unless the defendant proves otherwise. It includes intention, motive, knowledge or belief in a fact, or having reason to believe it.

The Companies Act requires a company to maintain books of account for up to eight preceding financial years, or longer if an enquiry or investigation is pending under the Act.

The managing director, whole-time finance director, CFO or other person responsible for maintaining the company’s books and financial statements is punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, a fine of INR50,000 to INR500,000 or both.

If the concerned officer is found to maintain false books of account, 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 requires every “reporting entity” to maintain records of transactions, documents relating to the identity of clients and beneficial owners, account files and business correspondence relating to its clients for five years from the transaction or for five years after the business relationship ends or the account closes, whichever is later. For certain transactions, the term “reporting entity” includes chartered accountants, company secretaries, certified management accountants and virtual digital asset service providers (VDASPs).

Cartelisation and anti-competitive practices are regulated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) constituted under the Competition Act, 2002 (the “Competition Act”), which provides for civil penalties and criminal liability only for non-compliance with CCI orders or directions. There are certain commitment procedures within the competition regime of India that allow enterprises facing inquiries for vertical anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominance to offer corrective remedies before an investigation concludes. Anti-competitive agreements affecting production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition, or control of goods/services that cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India are prohibited and void. An enterprise imposing unfair/discriminatory conditions or prices (including predatory pricing) in purchase or sale of goods/services abuses its dominant position. Penalties include the following.

• General anti-competitive conduct: up to 10% of average turnover for the preceding three financial years.
• Cartel agreements: up to three times profit per year of continuance, or 10% of turnover per year, whichever is higher.
• Non-compliance with CCI orders: fine of up to INR1,00,000/day, subject to a maximum of INR1,00,00,000; persistent non-compliance or failure to pay attracts imprisonment for up to three years, fine of up to INR25,00,00,000, or both.
• The CCI may also award compensation for loss or damage caused by contraventions. The appellate tribunal under Section 53Q holds similar powers.

The principal offences and penalties under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) include the following.

• False or misleading advertisement prejudicial to consumer interests: imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to INR1 million. Subsequent offences attract imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to INR5 million.
• Manufacturing, storing, selling or distributing or importing adulterated products: imprisonment for a term of six months to life, and fine ranging from INR100,000 to INR1 million, depending on the injury caused.
• Non-compliance with orders of the Central Authority 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 covers general offences, such as theft and criminal breach of trust, where these offences are committed in a cyber context. Where both statutes apply, the InTech Act prevails; while offences falling outside its scope may be prosecuted under the BNS.

Section 111 of the BNS introduces “cybercrimes” as a component of “organised crime”. Although the BNS does not define the term, Section 1(5) provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over a person, whether within or outside India, who commits an offence targeting a computer resource located in India

Hacking and Data Theft

The InTech Act prohibits a range of cyber-offences, including hacking, data theft, virus attacks, damaging computer networks, denying access to authorised persons, and tampering with computer systems, which are punishable by imprisonment of up to three years and/or a fine of up to INR5,00,000.

Further offences and their penalties include the following.

• Receiving stolen computer resources or communication devices dishonestly: imprisonment for up to three years and/or fine of up to INR1,00,000.
• Transmitting grossly offensive, menacing, or knowingly false information via computer or communication device with intent to cause annoyance, danger, insult, hatred, or criminal intimidation, or sending deceptive emails to mislead the recipient as to the origin of the message: imprisonment up to three years and a fine.
• Fraudulent or dishonest use of another’s electronic signature, password, or unique identification: imprisonment for up to three years and/or fine of up to INR1,00,000.

Indian foreign trade and customs laws restrict the import/export of specified items from certain countries and entities, with quantity controls applicable to some commodities. Items on the SCOMET List or covered under multilateral treaties require approval from the central government.

Trade sanctions arising from UN resolutions, international organisations or embargoes are enforceable under the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 and implemented through amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), administered by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (the “FTDR Act”). Restrictions generally align with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions or regimes such as those administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Under the FTDR Act, any person who attempts, undertakes, or abets the import or export of goods or technology in contravention of the Act or FTP commits an offence, attracting a fine of between INR1,000 and five times the value of the goods or technology, and suspension or cancellation of the Importer-Exporter Code.

The Customs Act addresses smuggling and duty evasion under Sections 132–135A. The relative offences involve (i) prohibited or dutiable goods; (ii) intent to evade duty or contravene import/export restrictions; and (iii) carrying, concealing, removing or dealing in such goods. Contraventions attract fines and/or imprisonment.

Under the BNS, anyone who intends to facilitate or knowingly facilitates an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, and voluntarily conceals its design or makes a knowingly false representation about it, is punishable as follows:

• with up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine if the offence is committed, or three years’ imprisonment and a fine if the offence is not committed; and

• where concealment relates to any other offence punishable with imprisonment, it is punishable with imprisonment for one-fourth of the maximum term if the offence is committed, and one-eighth of the maximum term if it is not.

The BNS upholds joint liability for offences committed pursuant to a common intention: where two or more persons are involved in an offence, each is treated as having committed it individually, regardless of the extent of their participation.

An abettor, through instigation or assistance, is punishable in the same manner as the principal offender. The BNS also provides for the punishment of abetment within India of an offence committed abroad and abetment from outside India of an offence committed in India. Under the BNSS, a person who conspires with or assists another to commit a corporate offence may likewise be liable.

Criminal conspiracy arises when two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or achieve a lawful object through illegal means. Under the BNS, conspiracy to commit an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for at least two years attracts the same penalties as abetment. Statutes such as the PCA impose additional liability for abetment in corporate offences. The Supreme Court recently held that a company may face trial for criminal conspiracy and cheating even if no individual employee or officer is named as an accused (Sanofi India Ltd. v CBI, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1790).

The PMLA is India’s primary anti-money-laundering legislation, enforced by the ED under the FATF framework. To invoke it, the ED must establish (i) a scheduled offence, including offences under the BNS, anti-narcotics, anti-terrorism and indirect-tax laws; and (ii) the generation of proceeds of crime (PoC) from it.

PoC is any property derived from a scheduled offence. Any involvement in its concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection or claiming of it as untainted property constitutes money laundering. Under Section 3, any person who directly or indirectly attempts, assists, or participates in any process or activity connected with PoC is guilty of money laundering.

If the accused is discharged, acquitted, or the scheduled offence is quashed, the PMLA prosecution falls away. Money laundering is a continuing offence, with the cause of action renewing each day of PoC possession.

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

Environmental offences in India are principally governed by the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA), which penalises violations of environmental norms including those relating to industrial operations, hazardous substance handling, and excess pollution disclosure. Every person directly in charge of a company’s affairs at the time of the contravention may be held personally liable.

Sector-specific rules include 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 further prohibit pollutant discharge and provide for company accountability.

Section 166 of the Companies Act imposes a statutory duty on directors to protect the environment; breach of Section 166(2) attracts a fine of up to INR 5,00,000.

While no explicit law mandates supply-chain compliance for social issues such as modern slavery, SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting framework requires transparency on social metrics, including environmental risks, labour practices, and supplier-sourced materials.

SEBI’s algorithmic-trading framework, introduced by the 4 February 2025 master circular “Safer participation of retail investors in Algorithmic Trading”, took effect on 1 April 2026. It includes high-frequency trading (HFT), used for high daily portfolio turnover and order-to-trade ratios.

Each algorithmic order must carry a unique exchange-assigned identifier so that regulators can trace market anomalies to the responsible algorithm. Brokers are responsible as principals for all algos on their platforms. Third-party strategy providers must be empanelled with stock exchanges. SEBI prohibits unregulated open APIs and requires providers of “black-box” strategies, whose trading logic is undisclosed, to hold a Research Analyst registration.

As detailed in 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law, SEBI prohibits manipulative or deceptive devices or artifices to defraud in connection with issuing, purchasing or selling listed or proposed-to-be-listed securities. This may include algorithmic trading that results in a “manipulative, fraudulent or unfair trade practice”. A person who contravenes, attempts to contravene or abets such conduct may face up to ten years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to INR250 million or both.

No comprehensive cryptocurrency legislation has yet been enacted in India. Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021, proposed prohibiting private crypto-assets and creating a framework for an RBI-issued digital currency, but the Bill has not received legislative assent.

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 combating of financing of terrorism obligations under the PMLA.

In March 2023, the government of India formally brought cryptocurrency and VDAs within the scope of the PMLA. VDASPs are reporting entities for the exchange, transfer, safekeeping and other financial services relating to VDAs; they must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit-India (FIU-IND) and report transactions, including suspicious transactions, within prescribed timelines. As of March 2026, 54 VDASPs had registered with FIU-IND. FIU-IND directed the takedown of 53 unregistered VDA exchanges. In January 2025, Bybit Fintech Limited was fined INR92.7 million for operating without registration and failing to meet KYC and AML obligations.

Registration requirements were further tightened in September 2025. Applicants must attend in-person meetings, provide live demonstrations of KYC systems, undergo CERT-In cybersecurity audits and demonstrate Travel Rule compliance. Failure to comply may result in a show-cause notice from the FIU-IND director and penalties of 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 provide for the revocation of licences of reporting entities in case of non-compliance.

A strong defence strategy has two hallmarks:

• a plausible factual case; and
• credible and admissible supporting evidence.

At trial, an accused person may challenge the prosecution’s case by cross-examining witnesses and calling defence witnesses.

The prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under reverse onus statutes such as under the PMLA, the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts before the burden shifts to the accused.

Defendants may challenge the chain of custody and procedural irregularities under the BNSS, which safeguards the seizure of case-related property and articles.

In PCA proceedings involving corporate vicarious liability, a company may show that it had adequate compliance procedures to prevent the conduct. An individual may show that they were not in charge of or responsible for the contravention, that they lacked knowledge of it or that they exercised due diligence to prevent it.

There is no general de minimis exception for white-collar offences. Some statutes, including the PMLA and tax laws, set reporting or value thresholds. Under the PCA, gifts below INR5,000 to a public servant are not treated as bribes.

The BNS contains general exceptions for acts or omissions by children or persons of unsound mind, acts justified by law or done in good faith, involuntary intoxication, and conduct under threat or duress. Depending on the circumstances, these exceptions may exclude liability or mitigate the offence.

The threshold is high: the accused must present credible evidence of the mitigating circumstances, and the court assesses the full factual context.

Plea bargaining is limited and unavailable where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or more than seven years’ imprisonment, or where the offence affects the country’s socio-economic condition or is committed against a woman or a child under 14.

An accused may file a plea-bargaining application before the jurisdictional court with a brief description of the facts of the case. The application must be voluntary, and the accused must not previously have been convicted of the same offence.

If satisfied that the application is voluntary, the court allows the prosecutor and complainant time to resolve the matter. On resolution, the court awards compensation to the victim and may impose one-half or one-fourth of the minimum punishment after hearing the parties.

Everyone must co-operate with investigating agencies by providing requested materials, information or documents and appearing when summoned to give statements or evidence.

There is a legal duty to furnish true and accurate information to the investigating officer, subject to the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Except for certain offences listed in Section 33 of the BNSS, or under laws requiring active disclosure, there is no general duty to disclose the commission of an offence.

The voluntarily guilty plea before or during trial may attract a lighter sentence, but not below the statutory minimum for that offence, except where the plea-bargaining provisions apply.

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act establishes a mechanism for complaints concerning corruption or wilful misuse of power by public servants and safeguards against victimisation. Although notified in May 2014, it has not been enacted and does not cover corporate whistle-blowers.

Other mechanisms include SEBI’s requirement that listed companies maintain a whistle-blower mechanism and its reward mechanism, in place since 2019, for employees who report concerns.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ Company Auditors Report Order, 2020, which applies to audits beginning in FY 2021–2022, requires auditors to report whistle-blower complaints made during the financial year.

The Companies Act obliges auditors to report fraud. Failure to do so makes an auditor ineligible for appointment as an auditor of any company for five years and liable for fraud under the Companies Act.

The BNSS provides for state witness-protection schemes and requires the complainant’s prior permission for withdrawal of prosecution. A whistle-blower may therefore participate formally in proceedings before the criminal courts.

Cross-border investigations require a co-ordinated, jurisdiction-specific strategy. Positions should remain consistent across jurisdictions while reflecting local procedural and substantive requirements. The strategy should also account for each jurisdiction’s disclosure obligations.

The available defences will ultimately depend on the law of the jurisdiction in which the investigation is conducted.

The Supreme Court is currently reconsidering its previous decision in Vijay MadanlalChoudhary on limited aspects, such as the reverse onus of proof and an accused person’s right to receive an ECIR (Karti P. Chidambaram v Enforcement Directorate, R.P.(Crl.) No.219/2022).

In Parvinder Singh v Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 903 (decided 19 May 2026), the Supreme Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates a pre-cognisance hearing for the accused, is substantive and mandatory even in trials under PMLA Act. This is a significant conferring of a substantive right on an accused person to demonstrate innocence even before cognisance is taken, thereby allowing criminal proceedings to be brought to an end at a very early stage.