The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 redefined the offence of possessing disproportionate assets as 'illicit enrichment'. Critically examine whether the change strengthens or weakens prosecution of corrupt public servants.

The 2018 Amendment replaced the old Section 13(1)(e) offence of possessing disproportionate assets (DA) with Section 13(1)(b). Under it, a public servant commits criminal misconduct if he "intentionally enriches himself illicitly" while in office. Intent is presumed when he cannot satisfactorily account for assets beyond his known lawful income [1]. The change mostly strengthens the substantive law, but gaps in procedure weaken its effect.

How the change strengthens prosecution

• Presumed intent: Under Explanation 1, unexplained wealth is enough to establish illicit enrichment [1]. This follows the Standing Committee's 69th Report (2014), which recommended dropping the "intention" requirement because it raised the bar of proof [2].
• Workable evidence standard: Bribes rarely leave witnesses. A rebuttable presumption applies only after the prosecution proves the gap between assets and income, so the offence becomes provable [4].
• Global alignment: The term "illicit enrichment" matches Article 20 of UNCAC [3].
• Speedier trials: The new Section 4(4) sets a two-year target for trials and an ordinary outer limit of four years [1].

How it may weaken prosecution

• Investigation hurdle: The new Section 17A requires prior government approval before police can enquire into a public servant's official decisions or recommendations [1]. This can delay probes into those decisions.
• Reverse-burden fairness: UNCAC itself makes the offence optional, "subject to" each country's constitution [3]. The presumption strains the presumption of innocence, so courts may apply it cautiously.
• Arithmetic fragility: Everything depends on how "known sources of income" are computed. In October 2026, the Kerala High Court suspended former DGP Tomin J. Thachankary's four-year sentence. His appeal alleges that the prosecution miscalculated his income [5].
• Deadline stops at trial: No time limit applies to appeals. High Courts hold about 13.8% of pending cases [6], so suspended sentences can stay suspended for years.

On balance, the redefinition strengthens the substantive offence. Weakness comes from investigation and appeal procedure, not from the concept itself. Three changes would let the law deliver: independent audits of income calculations before a charge-sheet is filed, time-bound disposal of PC Act appeals, and a review of how Section 17A affects investigations. Together they would make the 2018 reform an effective tool for probity in public life and for SDG 16.5 (substantially reducing corruption and bribery).