The Enforcement Directorate (ED) in India has undergone a significant transformation, evolving into a powerful and controversial agency often accused of being used for political purposes. This evolution is closely tied to India’s efforts to comply with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations, particularly through the implementation and enforcement of anti-money laundering laws.
Since 2014, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power, the ED’s prominence has risen dramatically. Its actions have increasingly aligned with the ruling party’s political interests, raising concerns about its independence and impartiality. The agency’s expanded powers and increased activities are ostensibly part of India’s strategy to strengthen its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) framework in line with FATF standards.
However, the ED’s approach to investigations has been criticized for its apparent bias and selective targeting. Opposition politicians, businessmen, and activists critical of the government have faced aggressive action, even in cases with limited financial implications. This has fueled accusations of the ED being used as a political tool to intimidate and harass opponents.
Several high-profile cases illustrate this trend, with ED investigations into opposition leaders and the timing of raids often coinciding with crucial political events. The low conviction rate in ED cases further raises questions about the effectiveness of its investigations and whether they are primarily meant to create political pressure rather than secure convictions.
The ED’s expanded powers, justified under the guise of FATF compliance, have led to a situation where the agency can effectively punish individuals through prolonged investigations and asset freezes, even without securing convictions. This has raised concerns about due process and the impact on civil liberties.
Critics argue that the current implementation of FATF standards in India appears to be skewed towards political ends rather than genuine law enforcement objectives. The ED’s actions have raised serious questions about whether they are truly serving the purpose of combating financial crimes or if they have primarily become a means of political control.
