Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court

18 January 2025 2:00 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment orders (PAO) issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court emphasized the transformative amendments to the PMLA, affirming the inclusion of properties of equivalent value under the definition of "proceeds of crime" and upheld the jurisdictional and procedural compliance of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Act.
The petitioners contested the PAO attaching properties allegedly linked to proceeds of crime, citing violations of PMLA's provisions, including the failure to record “reasons to believe” and the detachment of properties from scheduled offenses. Central to the dispute was whether properties acquired prior to alleged offenses could be provisionally attached and whether statutory procedural requirements under Section 5(1) of PMLA had been met.
The ED contended that substantial evidence pointed to illegal mining activities generating proceeds of crime worth ₹337 crores, routed through dummy entities, and subject to money laundering.
The court upheld the definition of "proceeds of crime" as amended by the 2019 PMLA amendments, which include:
Property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity.
Property of equivalent value, even if the original proceeds are untraceable or held abroad.
Citing Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India and Axis Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court held that the legislative intent clearly allowed for the attachment of equivalent value properties to curb money laundering effectively. It dismissed the reliance on Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, ED, deeming it no longer good law in light of subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The petitioners alleged that the ED failed to record sufficient "reasons to believe," a statutory prerequisite under Section 5(1). The court, however, found detailed reasons substantiated by evidence, including:
Seizure of fake e-Rawana bills and dummy entries.
Material discrepancies in mined and sold minerals.
Records of illegal mining and proceeds routed through shell companies.
The court emphasized that the ED’s action was consistent with Section 5(1), and the PAO was subject to further adjudication by the competent authority under Section 8 of PMLA.
The court advised against interfering with the PAO at this provisional stage, highlighting the robust statutory framework for adjudication under PMLA. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be sparingly exercised, especially when statutory remedies exist.
The court rejected the claim of delayed forwarding of the PAO to the adjudicating authority, clarifying that procedural timelines must be reasonably construed. The PAO, issued on August 9, 2024, was forwarded on August 12, 2024, accounting for intervening holidays.

The High Court concluded that the PAO satisfied statutory requirements, and sufficient material linked the petitioners’ properties to proceeds of crime. It dismissed the writ petitions while directing the adjudicating authority to proceed independently and uninfluenced by the court’s observations.
This decision reinforces the PMLA's role as a robust tool against financial crimes, validating its expansive interpretation post-amendments. It underscores judicial deference to specialized statutory mechanisms and encourages procedural adherence to protect property rights.

 

Date of Decision: November 13, 2024
 

Similar News