The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanlal v Union of India follows a long history of judicial exceptionalism in dealing with ‘economic offences’, and in doing so, further dilutes the safeguards that apply to ordinary criminal investigations under the Constitution of India 1950, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act 1872. This article argues that the distinctions between ‘investigation’ and ‘inquiry’, and between the police and the Enforcement Directorate, in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, are specious and unjustified. It problematises the question, ‘Who is a police officer?’ as misleading, critiques the Court’s conclusions regarding the powers and immunities of the Enforcement Directorate, and argues that the Court’s judgment leads to a systematic breakdown of the protections against testimonial compulsion available during ordinary criminal investigations when it comes to offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.