Bengaluru court orders perjury case against defence witness in ED money laundering conviction
Synopsis
A Bengaluru Special Court has not only convicted a retired excise official and his daughter under PMLA — sentencing them to five and three years respectively — but has also ordered a rare perjury case against a defence witness who was caught contradicting himself under cross-examination. The ruling sets a significant precedent: family members holding tainted assets and witnesses who lie in court now face direct legal exposure.
Key Takeaways
Bengaluru Special Court convicted retired excise official M.
Ramachandra and daughter R.
Yurekha under PMLA on 14 October 2026 .
Ramachandra sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment; Yurekha to three years .
Five immovable properties ordered confiscated to the Central Government.
Perjury case ordered against defence witness M.
Jayaram under Section 340 CrPC after he contradicted himself under cross-examination.
Court ruled that family members holding proceeds of crime are liable under PMLA even if not named in the original case.
Money laundering deemed a continuing offence as long as proceeds remain held or projected as untainted assets.
A Special Court in Bengaluru has ordered the registration of a perjury case against a defence witness who gave false testimony in a money laundering case, in which retired excise official M. Ramachandra and his daughter R. Yurekha were convicted and sentenced to five years and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The verdict, pronounced on 14 October 2026, also directed the confiscation of five immovable properties to the Central Government.
The Conviction and Sentencing
The verdict was delivered by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48), in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s Bengaluru Zonal Office. Ramachandra, aged around 72 years, is a retired excise official convicted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). His daughter Yurekha was found liable for knowingly assisting in holding property acquired with the proceeds of crime in her name. The court treated the offence as a white-collar economic crime with significant social impact, while considering the accused's age and Yurekha's family circumstances as mitigating factors in sentencing.
Perjury Order Against Defence Witness
In a separate order passed the same day, the court directed the Registrar of the City Civil Court to register a perjury case against defence witness M. Jayaram, son of H. Mayanna Gowda, under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). During his examination-in-chief, Jayaram stated he did not know Ramachandra. However, under cross-examination, he admitted he was related to the accused and acknowledged that his earlier statement was false. The court applied the five guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024 INSC 601) to find prima facie grounds for initiating perjury proceedings. Notably, the same witness had also testified in the original corruption case.
Key Legal Principles Established
The ED stated that the conviction carries wider implications for other ongoing cases. The court held that a conviction in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act can support a money laundering prosecution, with the accused required to rebut the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA. Crucially, the court ruled that family members who hold or enjoy tainted assets are exposed to prosecution even if they were not accused in the original predicate case. The ED noted that pre-2005 conduct is not a shield where proceeds continue to be held or projected as untainted assets.
Implications for Future ED Cases
According to the ED, the court's ruling signals that money laundering is a continuing offence as long as the proceeds of crime remain in a person's possession or are projected as legitimate assets. The agency further noted that witnesses who give false evidence about their relationship with the accused or the source of funds now face the prospect of separate criminal proceedings. This ruling is expected to have a ripple effect on ongoing PMLA prosecutions involving family members of accused officials.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was convicted in the Bengaluru ED money laundering case?
Retired excise official M. Ramachandra and his daughter R. Yurekha were convicted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by a Bengaluru Special Court on 14 October 2026. Ramachandra was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and Yurekha to three years.
Why was a perjury case ordered against the defence witness?
Defence witness M. Jayaram initially claimed he did not know the accused M. Ramachandra, but admitted under cross-examination that he was related to him and that his earlier statement was false. The court applied Supreme Court guidelines from James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024 INSC 601) to find prima facie grounds for perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
What properties were confiscated in this case?
The court ordered the confiscation of five immovable properties to the Central Government as part of the PMLA verdict against M. Ramachandra and R. Yurekha.
What legal precedent does this ruling set for family members of accused officials?
The court held that family members who hold or enjoy tainted assets can be prosecuted under PMLA even if they were not named as accused in the original predicate offence. It also ruled that pre-2005 conduct is not a defence if the proceeds of crime continue to be held or projected as legitimate assets.
What is the broader impact of this ED conviction on other money laundering cases?
The Enforcement Directorate stated that the ruling establishes that a conviction for disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act can directly support a PMLA prosecution. It also signals that defence witnesses who give false testimony about their relationship with the accused face separate criminal proceedings.
