The insertion of Section 32A into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) established the “Clean Slate” doctrine, aiming to immunize successfully resolved corporate debtors from prior criminal liabilities. However, this commercial imperative frequently collides with the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) independent mandate to attach “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Despite the doctrine’s constitutional validation in Manish Kumar v. Union of India, recent flashpoints most notably the Kalyani Transco saga and Supreme Court observations in early 2026 demonstrate that judicial policy prioritizing resolution speed cannot permanently override a competing executive statutory framework. Furthermore, while the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 rationalizes the waterfall priority of standard statutory dues, it leaves the PMLA threshold attachment problem completely unaddressed, resulting in continued bid suppression and structural value destruction. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence from U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the UK Insolvency Act, this paper proposes a targeted legislative intervention: the enactment of Section 32A(3). This proposed mechanism mandates pre-approval consultation and escrow safeguards, structurally harmonizing the state’s anti-money laundering enforcement with the IBC’s core objective of value maximization.