Talk:Enforcement Directorate

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enforcement Directorate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110907000158/http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in:80/MLA%20questions.htm to http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in/MLA%20questions.htm#Special_Courts_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enforcement Directorate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426044056/http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in/functions.html to http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in/functions.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in/MLA%20questions.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

completion vs. conviction rate

In July 2022, according to data shared by the union government in Parliament, only 23 people have been convicted in 5,422 cases registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the 17 years after the law was passed, which is a completion rate of less than 0.5%. Whereas the national conviction rate in India for offences of the Indian Penal Code is 57.0% in 2021.

This statement is misleading.

Conviction and completion are two different things. While it is true that the ED cases trial completion rate is less than 0.5%, the case completion rate under IPC is 10.5% as per NCRB's Crime in India 2022 data, and not 57%. VIBHAATH GUDTROT (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Distorted data about Conviction Rate

Distorted data is presented about the conviction rate of ED, juxtaposed with the conviction rate of IPC offenses, claiming the former to be 0.5% and the latter 57%, citing HT and NCRB. However, there's no mention of the so-called "conviction rate" or % in the given source, nor any mention of the accusations made by the opposition "based on that". In fact, conviction rate is calculated using the formula: ⁠Cases Convicted/Cases in which Trials were Completed⁠ × 100 (refer Definitions in 2nd source) and NOT by dividing it with the total "registered cases" which is ludicrous (imagine how many zeroes after decimal will be there if the same were applied to the crores of registered cases vs convicted cases under the IPC, as 90% of cases are pending trial in Indian courts). In reality, the conviction rate of ED is 93.54%, with 29 cases convicted out of 31 cases that completed trial (source). The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:OR. The figure was not shared by the opposition but the Union government. I have removed the wording sourced to NCRB link and expanded relevant content. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Union govt did not shared the figure 0.5%, WP:OR was exactly my point. You re-added the OR with misinformation (0.5%). Besides, do not remove the conviction rate, see "WP:NOTCENSORED". Remember? --The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Still I find that your explanation has almost nothing to do with your massive content removal. Will you address why you are edit warring over it? Ratnahastin (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I had clearly explained my three edits in the edit summary, but you blatantly reverted without refuting each of them, which in turn reintroduced fake data and mere allegations, treating an encyclopedia as a newspaper and a mouthpiece of antigovernmental propaganda, violating WP:NPOV. So, it's your turn to explain why you did that. Last time I checked, you were edit warring without explanation on another page and came here by following my contributions, again for edit warring.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The definition of such conviction cannot be applied to PMLA, as PMLA is a non-bailable offence until proven otherwise in the court of law, effectively convicting the accused to jail. India Code: Section Details, and explanation clearly says ED has the right to immediate "conviction", unless contested in court, where upon public prosecutor will have chance to oppose such bail, and the court may determine whether the person is guilty or not.

However, while the edit seems reasonable, it would be prudent to also mention total number of cases brought by ED, and number of pending cases as well. 114.23.145.102 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

[1]https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_2_00035_200315_1517807326550&sectionId=25512&sectionno=45&orderno=48&orgactid=AC_CEN_2_2_00035_200315_1517807326550 114.23.145.102 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

ED has so far lodged 5906 Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), resulting in arrest of 513 persons.In July 2023, data shared by the union government in the Parliament showed that only 31 has completed trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the last nine years. Of the 31 cases, 29 resulted in convictions. This equates to a conviction rate of 93.54%. Though this figure exceeds the 57% national conviction rate for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), about 10.5% of IPC cases have completed trial compared to a mere 0.52% of PMLA cases

I have made the above change. it is important to put things in perspective. so both completion and conviction rate are to be mentioned for both PMLA and IPC cases. VIBHAATH GUDTROT (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Misconstrued sources and claims

The section claiming that the SC has limited ED's power to arrest is factually incorrect and misrepresents the sources. The HT source refers to a "specific case", where the court prevented ED from arresting "two individuals", not a general revocation of the ED's power to arrest. The other source reports a weak "argument" (NOT a judgement) presented by lawyer Kabil Sibal in a petition challenging the arrest of a minister, claiming that ED is not police and thus cannot arrest, citing a July 2022 judgement (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case). This is a lie. In fact, that judgement upheld the power of ED to make arrests. Besides, ED derives it powers from the PMLA Act and not because they are police. Even recently, the ED arrested a sitting chief minister (Arvind Kejriwal). 27.59.235.31 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)