Man Caught Smuggling ₹1.38 Crore on Chennai Egmore Express

 Chennai, April 12, 2025 – The recent apprehension of Madurai resident Navaneeth Krishnan at Chennai Egmore Express has spotlighted the stringent measures and penalties under Indian law for smuggling undocumented cash. During a routine inspection prompted by suspicion, the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Police uncovered cash worth Rs 1.38 crore concealed on his person, wrapped in cloth. Authorities suspect this is not an isolated incident, with indications that Krishnan may have previously smuggled money via trains. Over the past six months, Punalur Railway Police seized this substantial amount, marking a significant enforcement action against illicit cash transportation.

Legal Framework and Procedures

Under Indian law, the transportation of undocumented cash exceeding prescribed limits falls under the purview of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, administered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and the Customs Act, 1962, enforced by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The PMLA mandates that any cash transaction or series of transactions exceeding Rs 10 lakh within a month must be reported by financial institutions, with stricter scrutiny for amounts suggesting illicit origins. The Income Tax Act, 1961, further requires individuals to declare cash above Rs 2 lakh when traveling domestically, a threshold Krishnan allegedly violated.

Following the seizure, standard procedure involves the RPF and Railway Police detaining the individual and conducting an initial investigation. The cash is subject to physical counting and verification, as seen in this case with the Rs 1.38 crore discovery. If deemed proceeds of crime, the matter is escalated to the ED for a deeper probe under PMLA Section 3, which defines money laundering as the concealment or transfer of illicit funds. The ED may register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and attach properties linked to the accused. Additionally, the Income Tax Department may intervene to assess tax evasion, while the case could be referred to a Special Court under PMLA for adjudication. Penalties and Punishments

The PMLA imposes severe penalties for money laundering offenses. Under Section 4, conviction can lead to rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to seven years, extendable to 10 years for offenses tied to serious crimes like drug trafficking or terrorism financing. A fine of up to Rs 5 lakh or three times the value of the laundered property—potentially exceeding Rs 4 crore in this instance—may also be levied. Given the suspected repeat nature of Krishnan’s activities, courts could consider enhanced sentencing, reflecting the gravity of habitual smuggling.

The Customs Act applies if the cash is linked to cross-border activities, with Section 135 prescribing imprisonment up to seven years and fines for smuggling. The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, further regulates cash movement across borders, imposing penalties up to thrice the amount involved for violations, alongside potential imprisonment. For domestic smuggling, the Railways Act, 1989, allows fines and imprisonment up to one year for offenses on railway premises, though this is secondary to PMLA charges in such cases. Context and Implications

The seizure of Rs 1.38 crore underscores the evolving tactics of cash smuggling, often concealed in personal belongings, as noted in past incidents involving trains. Historical cases, such as the 2016 Salem-Chennai Egmore Express heist, highlight the challenges of securing cash consignments, though Krishnan’s case involves individual smuggling rather than organized robbery. The Punalur Railway Police’s action reflects heightened vigilance, yet the suspicion of prior smuggling suggests gaps in monitoring that authorities must address.

This case may prompt a broader investigation into Krishnan’s financial network, potentially involving asset freezes and international cooperation if foreign currency exchange is confirmed. The judicial process, likely spanning months, will test the robustness of India’s anti-money laundering framework, balancing enforcement with the accused’s right to defend the cash’s legitimacy. As the legal proceedings unfold, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the stringent measures in place to curb illicit financial flows within the country.