Latest news with #2018
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
UAE warns: Don't transfer money to strangers or risk 10-year jail
Transferring money to strangers, no matter the intent, may carry criminal penalties under UAE law/Representative Image TL;DR: Transferring or depositing funds into unknown or unverified accounts especially at ATMs for strangers is a criminal offence under UAE law. Convictions for money laundering under Federal Law No. 20/2018 can lead to 1–10 years in prison and fines from AED 100,000 to AED 5 million. Federal Decree Law No. 34/2021 also applies for similar acts conducted via electronic means, with penalties up to 10 years imprisonment and up to AED 5 million fine. The UAE Public Prosecution urges the public to exercise extreme caution, even compliant intentions don't exempt individuals from legal liability. In light of recent legal cases, the UAE authorities have issued a strong warning: helping strangers deposit or transfer money, even as a favour, can result in criminal charges for money laundering. Under UAE laws, individuals who use their personal identity to deposit or move funds for unknown parties can face up to ten years imprisonment and hefty fines, even if they were unaware of the funds' origin or intent. This latest advisory reaffirms that negligence or good faith does not exempt one from legal accountability under the country's strict anti-financial crime statutes. The Legal Framework: Understanding the Penalties According to Federal Law No. 20 of 2018 on Combating Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, knowingly transferring funds associated with criminal proceeds with intent to disguise their source constitutes a money laundering offence. Article 22 of this law sets the punishment at: 1 to 10 years in prison Fines ranging from AED 100,000 ($27,225) to AED 5 million ($1.36 million), or both Under Federal Decree Law No. 34 of 2021 on Combating Rumours and Cybercrimes, similar penalties apply when electronic means are used to conceal or move illicit funds: Up to 10 years of imprisonment Fines up to AED 5 million, or both These laws emphasise that intent to obscure a transaction, even unintentionally, can expose individuals to severe criminal liability. Real-World Risks: Why Such Transactions are Illegal The UAE's strict stance stems from its ongoing commitment to combat money laundering, terrorism financing, and financial fraud, all of which can exploit innocent citizens through seemingly minor acts like transferring money on behalf of others. Criminal networks often rely on unsuspecting individuals, sometimes referred to as 'money mules,' to move illicit funds without detection. By using regular bank customers to conduct these transactions, criminals attempt to break the audit trail and avoid scrutiny from law enforcement or financial monitoring units. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Undo Therefore, the law criminalizes not just the act of laundering money, but also any willful or negligent facilitation of such transactions, even when carried out unknowingly. The goal is to close legal loopholes and make it harder for criminal enterprises to mask their financial trails. Public Prosecution: Official Guidance and Risk Advisory The UAE Public Prosecution has issued clear statements advising residents never to accept requests to transfer or deposit money on behalf of strangers. It reiterated that using one's ID card or banking credentials to complete such transactions, even under a seemingly legitimate pretext is legally risky and could lead to formal charges. Authorities emphasise that individuals should treat these cases as non-optional: even if persuaded or tricked, they can still be held responsible unless they immediately report the incident to authorities. Best Practice: If You Receive Unexpected Money or Requests UAE authorities and banks recommend these steps for safety: Refuse to transfer or deposit money for someone you don't personally know. Do not move or withdraw unexpected funds received through a stranger's mistake, they may be traced back to criminal activity. Report immediately to your bank and relevant authorities, such as the Dubai Police via 901 or the anti-fraud hotline. Maintain records of all communications and responses as evidence. These measures help protect individuals from being inadvertently involved in financial irregularities. What may seem like an innocent gesture, transferring money on behalf of a stranger can lead to grave legal consequences in the UAE. Under strict anti-money laundering and cybercrime laws, individuals who facilitate dubious transactions, even unknowingly, could face up to a decade in prison and millions in fines. Legal and security authorities underline that ignorance of the law is no defence, and responsible financial conduct must be the standard in all personal banking interactions.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
PSBs flag 1,629 wilful defaulters with dues over ₹1.62 trillion: FinMin
The Union Finance Ministry on Tuesday said that public sector banks (PSBs) have classified 1,629 unique corporate borrowers as wilful defaulters, with outstanding loans totalling ₹1.62 trillion as of March 31, 2025. In a written reply in the Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary informed the data from the Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC). He further added that the list of defaulters, excluding overseas borrowers, is updated monthly and made publicly accessible through the websites of registered credit information companies such as CIBIL, Experian, Equifax, and CRIF High Mark. Chaudhary further added that the wilful defaulters and large defaulters, dated July 30, 2024, cases of wilful defaults at overseas branches of banks incorporated in India shall be reported to credit information companies, if such disclosure is not prohibited under the laws of the host country. Further, as per the information received from the Directorate of Enforcement, nine accused who fled the country have been declared Fugitive Economic Offenders under the provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEOA). 'In these cases, as of now, assets amounting to ₹15,298.27 crore (approx.) have been confiscated under PMLA and assets amounting to ₹749.87 crore (approx.) have been confiscated under FEOA. Further, nine accused have been convicted in these cases under the provisions of PMLA,' said the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister further said that comprehensive measures have been taken to deter wilful default and to recover NPAs, including those pertaining to wilful defaulters. 'Wilful defaulters are not sanctioned any additional facilities by banks or financial institutions, and their units are debarred from floating new ventures for five years. Further, wilful defaulters and companies with wilful defaulters as promoters/directors have been debarred from accessing capital markets to raise funds,' he said. He further added that the bar on additional credit facilities to a wilful defaulter or any entity with which a wilful defaulter is associated shall be effective for a period of one year after the name of the wilful defaulter has been removed from the List of Wilful Defaulters (LWD) by the lender.
Hans India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
PR babus to call on Governor to clear air on BC quota hike
Hyderabad: Facinga lack of clarity on how to proceed, Panchayat Raj officials are planning to meet Governor Jishnu Dev Varma regarding the pending approval of the 'Panchayat Raj Act (Amendment) Ordinance – 2018' for Backward Classes (BC) quotas in local body elections. As the Telangana High Court deadline for conducting local body elections draws closer, uncertainty prevails over the fate of the 'Panchayat Raj Act (Amendment) Ordinance – 2018', which is yet to receive the Governor's assent. The ordinance seeks to amend Section 285-A of the Act to enable the implementation of 42 per cent reservations for BCs in local bodies. Sources indicate that Panchayat Raj department officials have sought an appointment with the Governor and are preparing to make a detailed presentation justifying the need for enhanced BC quotas. Higher officials intend to brief the Governor personally, highlighting the legal perspectives, the historical backwardness of BC communities, and the recommendations made by the BC Dedicated Commission. The objective is to address the Governor's concerns and convince him about the state's due diligence, including caste-wise enumeration and related safeguards undertaken to ensure constitutional validity. It is also understood that the Governor recently sought legal advice on the draft ordinance and has reviewed how similar reservations were implemented in other states. However, no official decision has been communicated so far, leading to growing suspense and political speculation. The state cabinet had earlier approved the ordinance to amend Section 285-A, which currently restricts reservations in local bodies to 50 per cent. To facilitate the proposed 42 per cent quota for BCs without breaching the overall reservation cap, the section required amendment.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Breather for telecom operators from paying Rs 141 cr penalty over spam
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel New Delhi: India's telecom operators need not pay penalties to the tune of ₹141 crore till August 8 for failing to control spam. The regulator had levied the fines on the telcos, but Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has put off the payments till the next date of hearing in the the matter till next month, the tribunal had at a hearing Thursday asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) to submit an affidavit on the sides presented their arguments during the hearing. As Trai has to share further information, the tribunal asked the counsel for the regulator to file an affidavit containing the requisite regulator had levied penalties on all three private telcos-Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea-as well as state-run Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) for failing to control the private operators had challenged the move, arguing that the regulator should not have levied the penalties when an anti-spam platform was still in the process of had stayed Trai's penalties in fines were levied as part of the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018 (TCCCPR). The telcos argue that the delay in implementation of spam control measures was caused due to Covid and that they were not responsible for support their point, the telcos submitted details to the TDSAT stating that when Trai imposed the penalties, the digital consent acquisition (DCA) platform was still being staying the penalties in its January 28 order, the TDSAT had observed that telecom firms were not responsible for the delay in implementation of the regulations, including the DCA."Thus, it is unfair and arbitrary on the part of the respondent to impose financial disincentives on the appellants (telcos) for something which was beyond their control," TDSAT had said in the levying of penalties on telecom firms as part of the TCCCPR has been a point of dispute between the regulator and the telcos. While the regulator has been imposing penalties on telcos, it has not realised any money as operators contended that they should not be held accountable for something which they don't control or to get the amount itself, the regulator had even asked the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to encash the bank guarantees of the companies to recover the amount. But DoT has not agreed to the request.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Telcos get temporary relief in ₹141-crore spam penalty case
New Delhi: India's telecom operators won't need to pay penalties to the tune of around ₹141 crore levied by regulator for not being able to control spam till August 8, the next date of hearing on the case in the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal ( TDSAT ). The telecom tribunal, at a hearing Thursday, adjourned the matter till August 8, and asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ( Trai ) to submit an affidavit on the matter. During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments. As Trai has to share further information, the tribunal asked the counsel for the regulator to file an affidavit containing the requisite details. The regulator had levied penalties on all three private telcos - Reliance Jio , Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea as well as state-run Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) - for failing to control spam. However, the operators had challenged the penalties, arguing that the regulator should not have levied the penalties when an anti-spam platform was still in the process of development. TDSAT had stayed the Trai's penalties in January. The fines were levied as part of the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations , 2018 (TCCCPR). The telcos argue that the delays in implementation of spam control measures were caused due to Covid and they were not responsible for the delay. To support their point, the telcos submitted details to the TDSAT stating that when Trai imposed the penalties, the digital consent acquisition (DCA) platform was still being deployed. While staying the penalties in its January 28 order, the TDSAT had observed that telecom firms were not responsible for the delay in implementation of the regulations, including the DCA. 'Thus, it is unfair and arbitrary on the part of the respondent to impose financial disincentives on the appellants (telcos) for something which was beyond their control,' TDSAT said in the January order. The levying of penalties on telecom firms as part of the TCCCPR has been a bone of contention between the regulators and telcos. While the regulator has been imposing penalties on telcos, it has not realised any money as operators contended that they should not be held accountable for something which they don't control or perpetuate. Failing to get the amount itself, the regulator had even asked the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to encash the bank guarantees of the companies to recover the amount. But the DoT has not agreed to the request of Trai. The regulator has been strengthening the TCCCPR rules, but the telcos argue that since key stakeholders like telemarketers, over the top (OTT) have been kept out of the purview of the rules, there won't be desired results to curb spam.
