ED Search Under PMLA Not Restricted To Persons Named In Complaint, Covers Those In Possession Of Proceeds Of Crime: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Friday clarified that Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not restrict the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct searches only at the premises of persons who have been named in the prosecution complaint. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain said that the provision of search also covers those...
The Delhi High Court on Friday clarified that Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not restrict the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct searches only at the premises of persons who have been named in the prosecution complaint.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain said that the provision of search also covers those individuals who are in possession of proceeds of crime but still may not be accused of any scheduled offence or offence of money laundering.
The Court said that Section 17 of PMLA does not lay down that the search can be carried out in the premises of that person alone qua whom a complaint has been filed or report had been forwarded to the concerned Magisterial Court.
“The pre-condition is of 'prior institution of complaint or forwarding of a report under Section 157 Cr.P.C'. There is no mandate that search should also be of the person shown accused in such report or complaint,” the Court said.
“In a given situation, a person can be recipient of proceeds of crime, without having any criminal intent and, therefore, it is not necessary that any such person should be an accused in a prior complaint or report,” it added.
The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the ED challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing de-freezing of cash and electronic devices seized from the premises of one late Amlendu Pandey in relation to a money laundering case involving alleged hawala operator Hassan Ali Khan. The prosecution complaint was filed against Khan as far back as in 2011.
It was Pandey's case that the Adjudicating Authority had neither given any findings about the sources disclosed by him nor there was any live-link between seizure and the alleged ongoing investigation.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench said that the search was conducted by ED in the case as the concerned officer had “reason to believe‟ that money laundering activities were still going on. It added that ED decided to conduct the search to recover incriminating material.
“As per Section 17(1)(iii), the premises of any person, who is in possession of any records relating to money laundering, can also be searched,” it said.
Further, the Bench observed that the search was of February 2016 and was consequent upon a “complaint” already forwarded to the Court in the year 2011.
The Court remanded the matter back remanded with request to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the appeal afresh and to decide the same in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Karthik Sabharwal and Mr. Akshay Belal, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. AMLENDU PANDEY (D) THROUGH LR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1565