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
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.