In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that a statement made by an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 against an investigating officer is not valid as the evidence before a court of law. This decision has reinforced constitutional rights of the accused, particularly the right against self-incrimination and applied as well the general criminal principle that bail is the rule of thumb as well as jail is the exception even in cases involving money laundering. 1. Inadmissibility of Confession The Supreme Court has defined that any statement made through the usage of an accused before an IO under the PMLA cannot quantity to proof against the accused in trial. This view is in tune with more general principles of criminal jurisprudence in which confessions against coercive factors or outside of strict prison formalities are held to be unreliable and incapable of admission. Such confession, elicited without granting the accused his right to criminal counsel, is in direct contravention of the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. 2. Application of the Principle is Bail is the Rule as well as Jail is the Exception The Court has iterated that even in cases under the PMLA, the general principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" should apply. It brings out the imperative of guaranteeing that the accused are not unnecessarily deprived of their liberty in cases where the presumption of innocence continues to operate until the accused is found guilty. The Court also noticed that stringent conditions for granting bail in PMLA cases should not override the fundamental rights of the accused. 3. Protection of the rights given to the accused This decision has become a cornerstone that protects the rights of all persons committing financial crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the legal rights accruing to the suspect are integral in the prosecution of white-collar crimes. Or, in other words, fair investigation procedures, such as the right to counsel and the right to combat personal injury, have to avoid abuses of state coercion by precluding decisions based on invalid acknowledgments. This decision serves to remind that whatever the gravity of the crime-money laundering-whatever the seriousness of the commercial crime, the rights of those accused must be protected. The Indian law thus has a procedure in the protection of human rights whereby it is envisaged that confessions are to be cancelled and rejected in the presence of the consent is a right according to international jurists and guides.