Introduction
The fight against money laundering is a continuous battle, and one of the most significant tools in this fight is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘Act’). Central to the effectiveness of this Act is the know your customer (‘KYC’) process, which ensures that financial institutions have accurate and up-to-date information about their clients. Recently, the central government has notified[i] certain amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 (‘PML Rules’), to ensure stringent enforcement of KYC updates by the reporting entities (‘RE’).
I. Background of the Amendment
This amendment's primary purpose is to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the KYC process and ensure that all financial transactions are transparent and traceable. This move is part of a broader strategy to curb financial crimes and ensure compliance with global anti-money laundering standards. Key stakeholders involved in this amendment include the Ministry of Finance, the financial regulators, and various reporting entities such as banks and financial institutions.
II. Key Observations
The notification amends the following PML Rules:
1) R. 9 of the PML Rules
The following amendments to r. 9 of the PML Rules have been notified, which talk about client due diligence (CDD)
As per the substituted r. 9(1C) of the PML Rules, reporting entities are mandated to verify a client's identity using the KYC identifier. This identifier can be retrieved from the central KYC records registry (‘CKRR’), thus eliminating the need for clients to repeatedly submit the same documents unless (i) there is a change in their information or (ii) the records are incomplete, or (iii) the validity of the documents has lapsed, or (iv) the RE considers it to be necessary for the purpose of verification, enhanced due diligence, or for building the risk profile of the client.
With such substitution, the KYC process has been streamlined, making the process more efficient.
The phrase ‘*as soon as possible’ is *provided under r. 9(1D) of the PML Rules has been substituted with ‘within seven days or within such period as may be notified by the Central Government’.
Through such substitution, KYC updation is now a time-bound process, thus ensuring prompt KYC updates.
A new sub-rule, r. 9(IH) of the PML Rules has been added, which requires that the CKRR inform the RE of any update regarding the KYC records of any client. The RE ought to retrieve their internal KYC records accordingly.
Such practice will ensure consistency and accuracy across all KYC records.
2) R. 9A of the PML Rules
The amendments to r. 9A of the PML Rules, which discuss the CKRR's functions and obligations, include:
By virtue of the present notification, the word ‘filing,’ which is provided under r. 9A(2)(g) of the PML Rules has now been substituted with ‘filing, retrieval, and utilisation of’.
This substitution enhances the clarity and comprehensiveness of the rule, covering all aspects of KYC records management.
III. Analysis and Conclusion
The impact of the notification on the RE and the CKRR is discussed below:
Impact on RE: Following the amendment being notified, RE, such as banks and financial institutions, will have enhanced responsibilities as per the new rules. They must ensure that their KYC records comply with the updated regulations, such as ensuring that KYC records for each client are updated and accurate.
Importance of CKRR: The CKRR shall now play a pivotal role in this updated setup, as the centralisation of KYC information would allow for efficient and reliable verification processes. Further, using a KYC identifier would unburden the clients from repeatedly providing the same information and ensure that the RE has access to the current and correct data.
Implementing these new rules may be challenging for the RE, who must promptly understand the amendment, inform and train their staff, and align with the new KYC requirements.
The recent amendments to the PML Rules mark a significant step towards enhancing the KYC process. By enforcing more stringent updates and leveraging the CKRR, these changes aim to create a more robust and reliable financial system. As we move forward, it is essential for reporting entities to adapt and comply with these new regulations to ensure the integrity and transparency of financial transactions.
End Note
[i] Notification G.S.R. 419(E) [F. NO. P-12011/12/2022-ES CELL-DOR] dt. 19.07.2024.
Authored by Pranav Dabas, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights

04 Nov 2025
15
Min Read
Clean before the Crime? Attachment of Properties Acquired before the Commission of the Scheduled Offence under the PMLA
Can property acquired before a crime be seized under the PMLA? This article examines how Indian courts have interpreted the concept of “proceeds of crime,” balancing enforcement power with constitutional safeguards, and compares global confiscation regimes to determine where the legal line truly lies.

19 May 2025
10
Min Read
No Conflict with the CrPC: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Fair Disclosure in PMLA Cases in Light of Reverse Burden on Accused
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed that accused persons under the PMLA are entitled to access all documents seized or filed with the prosecution, regardless of reliance by the ED. The Court ruled this disclosure is essential to uphold Article 21 and harmonised CrPC procedures with PMLA's special framework, reinforcing procedural fairness even in economic offences involving reverse burden clauses.
![Cover image for the article: [AT-PMLA] Property Attachment Upheld Following Illegal Call Interception at NSE](https://framerusercontent.com/images/VDwMJY6Tzd76BrmiL8jEJgtJHKE.jpg?width=3880&height=5820)
06 Apr 2025
4
Min Read
[AT-PMLA] Property Attachment Upheld Following Illegal Call Interception at NSE
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment of iSec Services’ assets, following findings of unauthorised call interception at NSE. The Tribunal held that the actions amounted to cheating and money laundering, triggering provisions under the IPC and PMLA. The judgment underscores that fraudulent conduct disguised as formal contracts cannot escape penal consequences under Indian law.

