'Can ED Add Predicate Offences From Different FIRs Through Addendums In ECIR?' Karnataka HC Asks In Money Laundering Case

The Karnataka High Court heard detailed submissions challenging the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) action of adding predicate offences through addendums to an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The said ECIR is a part of the money laundering investigation against 'Puppys Tours & Travels” and other connected parties.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a writ petition filed by the stakeholders embroiled in a money laundering scandal connected to an online gaming application called KINGS567. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they have laundered the money obtained through the said gaming app through various channels. The petitioners sought a declaration that the search, seizure, freezing and retention of assets carried out by the ED are illegal, along with a plea to quash the show cause notice issued under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and release the assets.

The primary issue raised before the Court concerned whether the ED has the power to add predicate offences through addendums. The second aspect to be examined was whether the ED could club together multiple FIRs arising from separate transactions using a single ECIR.

ED had registered the ECIR on 22.07.2025 based on multiple FIRs filed over the course of 15 years, for betting and gambling activities wherein the petitioners were allegedly involved.

First of all, the counsel appearing for the petitioners, Adv. Mayank Jain, argued that the statute does not confer any power upon the ED to club together multiple schedule offences [predicate offences resulting in illegal proceeds] arising out of different transactions in one ECIR.

According to the petitioners, the definition of “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA statute indicates property derived directly or indirectly from a criminal activity relating to a specific scheduled offence.

When the Court asked about the dates of the predicate offences, counsel for the petitioner submitted as below:

“The FIRs start from 2011, beginning from 02.03.2011. When the ECIR was registered in 2025, no FIR was pending. Everything was closed.”

Clubbing Of FIRs Through Addendum In ECIR

According to the arguing counsel for the petitioners, the ED subsequently added FIRs from Bhopal and Harohalli through addendums in August 2025, even though there was no surviving predicate offence at the time of registration of the ECIR.

The petitioner argued that the ED's approach effectively results in merging proceeds of crime arising from unrelated transactions. There is no such statutory mechanism permitting the clubbing of unrelated transactions, added the counsel.

It was also contended that such a practice would lead to arbitrary discretion, with no checks or safeguards on the agency's powers.

Jurisdictional Concerns On FIRs In Different States In Single ECIR

During the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna raised a few doubts regarding the jurisdictional complications of adding FIRs from different states through ECIR addendums.

The Court asked whether any judicial precedent permits adding a predicate offence registered in one state as an addendum to an ECIR registered in another state.

“Has any court considered adding another FIR from a different crime as an addendum to an ECIR?” the Court asked.

The judge further observed:

“If a predicate offence arises in another state, should an ECIR not be registered there? Where would the concept of jurisdiction go if FIRs from different states are added into one ECIR?”

The Court also enquired why the ED could not simply register a fresh ECIR for a different offence instead of adding it to an existing investigation.

ECIR Is Only An Internal Document: ED

Responding to the petitioners' submissions, Senior Advocate Zoheb Hussain, appearing for the ED, argued that territorial restrictions applicable to police investigations under the CrPC/BNSS do not bind the Enforcement Directorate.

He submitted that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA relates to the “proceeds of crime”, which may arise from multiple criminal activities across jurisdictions.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Rana Ayyub, ED argued that an ECIR is merely an internal administrative document for initiating an inquiry. It does not require the prior registration of an FIR either.

He further contended that the ED's investigation concerns 'proceeds of crime' generated through the online platform “Kings 567”, which allegedly operated across multiple states.

According to the ED, several FIRs registered across jurisdictions relate to the same modus operandi and network of transactions, involving individuals connected to the same entity.

The ED argued that its investigation is 'proceeds-of-crime' specific rather than 'crime-specific'.

“Money laundering cannot be confined to physical boundaries,” Hussain submitted.

Issue Of Survival Of Predicate Offences

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the entire scheme of the PMLA has the “proceeds of crime” as its fulcrum, which ordinarily arises from a predicate offence.

The Court raised a question whether the foundation of a money laundering case would collapse if the predicate offences are quashed, closed, or results in acquittal.

In response, the Deputy Solicitor General submitted that at least one predicate offence, FIR No. 218 registered in Harohalli, continues to survive, which is sufficient to continue the investigation, He also added that the B Report in the said case has not been accepted yet by the jurisdictional magistrate.

On another note, the court also added that if the ECIR already exists and a B Report gets filed in a predicate offence, ED too has to be heard on the B Report acceptance. Otherwise, ED's hands will be tied in several matters , the court orally indicated that it would add this particular observation in its final order.

Challenge To Search And Seizure By Petitioners

The petitioners also challenged the search and seizure conducted by the ED, contending that the agency had recovered only cash and digital devices, and no properties which were linked to proceeds of crime.

Counsel submitted that the petitioners had no connection to the alleged offences, and therefore the search and seizure itself was illegal.

The Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India, however, argued that such contentions should be raised before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA. The writ petition should be confined strictly to the pleadings in it, added the counsel

Issues With Composition Of Adjudicating Authority

During the hearing, the petitioners also raised a separate challenge regarding the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.

It was argued that Section 6 of the PMLA Act requires a three-member Adjudicating Authority consisting of persons with expertise in law, administration and finance, but currently there is only one member functioning nationwide who is a cost accountant without legal expertise.

The judge then opined that such proceedings before such an authority would be 'coram non judice'.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that if the authority is not constituted in accordance with the statute, the legality of search and seizure proceedings may itself come into question.

“If what the petitioner says is correct, the house must be set in order,” the Court remarked.

The Court directed the State to secure instructions regarding the composition and qualifications of the Adjudicating Authority.

The Court orally remarked that the petitioners had raised both substantive and procedural challenges, including the issue of whether an effective remedy exists before the Adjudicating Authority.

The matter has been posted for 26^th March, when the State is expected to furnish further details regarding the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority.

Case Title: Puppys Tours And Travels LLP v. Union of India & Anr.

Case No: WP 964/2026 & Connected Matters