PMLA: All India Annual Digest 2025

Supreme Court

Accused cannot be kept in custody if order taking cognizance of Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint has been quashed. (Para 5) Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Accused's right to access all relevant materials, relied upon or not, to ensure a fair trial - Procedural denials of document access cannot override the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21. The prosecution's concern about roving inquiries was dismissed, as courts can assess document relevance and reject frivolous requests. The appeal was allowed, granting the accused access to unrelied upon documents and reinforcing their procedural and constitutional rights under the PMLA framework. (Para 56) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Applicability of Cr.P.C. to PMLA - The Court clarified that Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which incorporates the requirement of Article 22(2), applies to PMLA proceedings by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA. There is no inconsistency between the PMLA and Cr.P.C. in this regard. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : 2025 INSC 141

Illegal Arrest and Bail - Violation of Fundamental Rights - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent in a case under PMLA. The High Court had found that the arrest was illegal due to a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The respondent was detained at Airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The ED took physical custody of the respondent on March 5, 2022, but he was formally arrested only on March 6, 2022, and produced before a magistrate later that day. The Court found that the respondent was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of being taken into custody, rendering the arrest illegal. The Court emphasized that the failure to produce the respondent before a magistrate within 24 hours violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 22(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the arrest was deemed vitiated, and the respondent was entitled to bail. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : 2025 INSC 141

In an effort to combat illegal activities and money laundering, the Central Government through the PMLA and the Rules, 2005, mandated that all financial and banking institutions conduct client identity verification, maintain comprehensive records, and report relevant information to the Financial Intelligence Unit – India. Pursuant to the same, the Reserve Bank of India issued the Master Direction on Know your Customer (KYC), 2016 . The Master Direction on KYC prescribes the framework for Customer Due Diligence (CDD) procedures and outlines the digital KYC process under Chapter VI and Annex I, respectively. Additionally, Clause 18 of the MD on KYC introduced the Video based - Customer Identification Process (V-CIP) enabling remote customer verification through secure, real-time video interaction. As a result, multiple sectors – including banking, telecommunications, insurance, and mutual funds – have adopted digital KYC as a mandatory component of their CDD or Customer Identification Program (CIP) obligations, thereby facilitating identity verification of prospective customers in compliance with regulatory requirements. (Para 12) Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : 2025 INSC 599 : (2025) 7 SCC 191

In cases involving serious economic offences under the PMLA, such as illegal diversion and layering of funds leading to revenue losses, judicial intervention at a preliminary stage must be exercised with caution. Proceedings should not be quashed absent compelling legal grounds. Where allegations suggest significant financial misconduct, a trial is imperative to establish the full extent of wrongdoing and ensure accountability. The cascading effect of such offences necessitates a thorough judicial process to protect state revenue and legitimate investment sectors. (Para 31) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311 : 2025 INSC 349 : AIR 2025 SC 1940 : (2025) 4 SCC 818

Offence of money laundering under PMLA is a continuing offence. Act of money laundering does not conclude with a single instance but extends so long as proceeds of crime are concealed, used, or projected as untainted property. Legislative intent of PMLA is to combat money laundering, which involves transactions spanning over time. Continued utilization and concealment of proceeds of crime, even in recent times, extends the offence. Money laundering is an ongoing activity as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy. Proceedings initiated under PMLA for continuing offences are valid. (Para 24 & 25) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311 : 2025 INSC 349 : AIR 2025 SC 1940 : (2025) 4 SCC 818

Person need not be named as accused in complaint to retain seized property under Section 8(3). (Para 10) Union of India v. J.P. Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Polluter Pays Principle - Environmental Compensation (EC) – Held, NGT has no power to direct ED probe under PMLA - NGT lacks jurisdiction to issue such a directive, as its powers are limited by Section 15 of NGT Act of 2010 - An FIR must be registered for a scheduled offence before invoking the PMLA - NGT's penalty, which was based on the company's turnover, lacked a rational nexus with the alleged pollution - A company's revenue or its quantum has no connection to the penalty for environmental damage - If the NGT found the penalty to be minimal, it should have referred to the CPCB's (Central Pollution Control Board) methodology instead of a company's turnover - Question of the maintainability of PIL at this stage, noting that initial reports from Joint Committee indicated violations of environmental laws - Appeal allowed. [Paras 9-13] C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. v. Adil Ansari, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 836 : 2025 INSC 1035

Powers of NCLAT to Review Decisions of Statutory Authority under PMLA – The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) lacks jurisdiction to exercise judicial review over decisions of statutory authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), as such matters fall within the realm of public law. In the present case, the NCLAT, in its order dated 17.02.2020 in Company Appeal No. 957 of 2019, erroneously stayed and declared illegal a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 5 of PMLA, post the approval of a Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 05.09.2019 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The NCLAT's reliance on Section 32A of IBC, inserted w.e.f. 28.12.2019, to hold that the ED lacked power to attach assets of a Corporate Debtor post-approval of the Resolution Plan was held to be beyond its jurisdiction. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2020) 13 SCC 308], neither NCLT under Section 60(5) nor NCLAT under Section 61 of IBC can review decisions under public law, including those under PMLA. Appeals under Section 61 are limited to orders passed by NCLT and, in cases of Resolution Plan approvals under Section 31, only on grounds specified in Section 61(3). Consequently, the NCLAT's findings on the PAO were declared coram non judice, being without legal authority and jurisdiction, especially as the issue was sub judice before the Supreme Court in related appeals. (Para 24 - 31) Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2025 INSC 622

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA); Section 44 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 218 / Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Bail – Cognizance - Sanction under CrPC s. 197 - Liquor Scam - The appellant was arrested pursuant to a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 44 of the PMLA, in connection with the alleged liquor scam. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence, however, the High Court quashed the cognizance order, holding that it was taken without obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. The High Court's order remains unchallenged, leaving no valid cognizance order in force. The appellant has been in custody for approximately one year. The appellant sought bail before the Supreme Court, relying on the quashing of the cognizance order and the principles in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750. In a parallel matter, co-accused was granted bail by the Supreme Court under similar circumstances, with the Court criticizing the ED for continued detention absent a valid cognizance order. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in the absence of a valid order taking cognizance under PMLA, following its quashing for want of sanction, and considering prolonged incarceration. Held: - Bail granted, subject to stringent conditions. The Central Government directed to expeditiously designate a Sessions Judge as presiding officer of the Special PMLA Court in Raipur under Section 43(1) PMLA, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court applied the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA but emphasized the V. Senthil Balaji principles, which favor bail where: (i) no cognizance order exists; (ii) the accused has undergone substantial pre-trial detention (here, 1 year); (iii) the trial involves 20 co-accused requiring separate hearings on charges; and (iv) over 30 prosecution witnesses are cited, with a maximum sentence of 7 years. The ED's opposition, citing the appellant's influence and risk of tampering, was countered by the imposition of rigorous bail terms. The Court noted the vacancy in the Special PMLA Court and directed interim bail formalities before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, with liberty to the ED to seek cancellation for non-cooperation. The judgment underscores that detention without a valid cognizance order is impermissible, directing the ED to ensure procedural compliance for future cognizance. Anil Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Provisional attachment of assets – Jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT – Judicial review under public law – Interference with statutory authorities – Held, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), being creatures of the Companies Act, 2013, and exercising circumscribed jurisdiction under the IBC, lack the power to review or interfere with actions of statutory authorities like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA, which operates in the realm of public law. Such interference, including staying provisional attachment orders post-approval of a resolution plan under Section 32A IBC or declaring investigations abated, exceeds their statutory mandate and renders findings coram non judice. The phrase "arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution" in Section 60(5)(c) IBC does not encompass judicial review of public law decisions by government or statutory bodies. [Referred: Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308, Para 27, 30] Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2025 INSC 622

Registration of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) - High Court cannot direct Enforcement Directorate (ED) to register ECIR merely on prima facie finding that predicate offence existed. (Para 5) R. Madhavan Pillai v. Rajendran Unnithan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Section 3 - Quashing – Held, the appellants had already availed of the statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA, which remains pending - The PMLA provides a complete and self-contained adjudicatory framework under Sections 5, 8, and 26 - Judicial interference at this stage would prejudge issues within the Tribunal's domain - The ECIR did not name JSW-appellant as accused, and the CBI charge sheet also dropped it from prosecution, indicating absence of a live predicate offence - However, the ED's action was confined to recovery of INR 33.80 crore allegedly arising from the attached bank accounts - When an efficacious statutory remedy under PMLA is being pursued before the Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court ordinarily refrains from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with ongoing proceedings - Alleged possession or use of attached property constitutes a matter for adjudication under PMLA's internal mechanism, not for pre-emptive quashing - The Court declined to quash proceedings, observing that the dispute regarding the characterization of attached funds as “proceeds of crime” must first be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal - Appeals dismissed. [Relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Paras 21, 24, 33-40] JSW Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 977 : 2025 INSC 1194

Section 19, 45 - The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 interpreting Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), held that the requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right and must be meaningfully fulfilled to serve its constitutional and statutory purpose. The Court emphasized two key aspects of Section 19(1): (1) the authorized officer must record in writing the reasons for believing the arrestee is guilty of an offence under the PMLA, and (2) the arrestee must be informed of these grounds as soon as possible. The Court clarified that providing written grounds of arrest to the arrestee is essential to avoid disputes over compliance and to enable the arrestee to seek legal counsel and challenge the arrest under Section 45 of the PMLA for bail. Failure to furnish written grounds could lead to immediate release, as seen in V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51. The Court further noted that oral communication or mere reading of voluminous grounds is insufficient, as it does not allow the arrestee, often in a distressed state, to effectively comprehend or recall the grounds for pursuing legal remedies, thereby rendering the constitutional protection under Article 22(1) and statutory mandate under Section 19(1) ineffective. (Para 10) Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169 : 2025 INSC 162 : AIR 2025 SC 1388 : (2025) 5 SCC 799

Section 19 - Arrest under Special Acts – Judicial Review – Safeguards and Standards - In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, held that arrests under the PMLA are subject to stringent safeguards under Section 19, ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary actions by authorized officers. The officer must have material-based "reasons to believe" the person is guilty of money laundering, and the arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest promptly. Courts, when reviewing such arrests under special statutes like PMLA, UAPA, Customs Act, GST Acts, etc., should exercise judicial review sparingly, limiting scrutiny to compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards, such as the officer's authorization, existence of material supporting the belief, and communication of arrest grounds. The sufficiency or adequacy of material forming the basis of the officer's belief is not subject to judicial review, as such arrests occur at a nascent stage of investigation. The scope of judicial review varies by case context, and parameters applicable to service-related cases do not extend to arrests under special statutes. Arrests under such Acts serve investigative purposes, including securing information, preventing interference, and maintaining law and order, as noted in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303. Special Acts like PMLA aim to protect financial systems and national sovereignty, necessitating cautious judicial interference to avoid frustrating their objectives. Courts should avoid magnifying minor procedural lapses, as frequent interference may embolden offenders and undermine societal and national interests, particularly given the complex nature of modern crimes facilitated by technological advancements. (Para 9 -12) Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2025 INSC 272 : (2025) 6 SCC 545

Section 24 - Entitlement to Unrelied Documents - Whether an accused under the PMLA is entitled to access a list of unrelied upon documents and statements collected by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) during investigation but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint. Held, an accused under the PMLA is entitled to a list of statements, documents, material objects, and exhibits not relied upon by the ED. This ensures the accused has knowledge of such materials to apply for their production under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) at the defence stage. Courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing such applications, denying them only in exceptional circumstances due to the reverse burden under Section 24 PMLA. (Para 30, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 24 - Entitlement to Unrelied Documents - Whether an accused under the PMLA is entitled to access a list of unrelied upon documents and statements collected by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) during investigation but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint. Held, an accused under the PMLA is entitled to a list of statements, documents, material objects, and exhibits not relied upon by the ED. This ensures the accused has knowledge of such materials to apply for their production under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) at the defence stage. Courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing such applications, denying them only in exceptional circumstances due to the reverse burden under Section 24 PMLA. (Para 30, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 24 - Entitlement to Unrelied Documents - Whether an accused under the PMLA is entitled to access a list of unrelied upon documents and statements collected by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) during investigation but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint. Held, an accused under the PMLA is entitled to a list of statements, documents, material objects, and exhibits not relied upon by the ED. This ensures the accused has knowledge of such materials to apply for their production under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) at the defence stage. Courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing such applications, denying them only in exceptional circumstances due to the reverse burden under Section 24 PMLA. (Para 30, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 24 - Safeguarding PMLA Burden - Given the reverse burden under Section 24 PMLA, denying access to unrelied upon documents hampers the accused's ability to discharge this burden, necessitating liberal construction of Section 233(3) CrPC to protect the accused's rights. (Para 50, 51, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645

Section 24 - Safeguarding PMLA Burden - Given the reverse burden under Section 24 PMLA, denying access to unrelied upon documents hampers the accused's ability to discharge this burden, necessitating liberal construction of Section 233(3) CrPC to protect the accused's rights. (Para 50, 51, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 24 - The burden lies on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering, as the court presumes involvement unless proven otherwise. (Para 13) Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201 : 2025 INSC 210 : AIR 2025 SC 1028

Section 44(1)(b) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 223(1) – Pre-Cognizance Hearing – Held, under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, a Special Court is required to grant the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. The proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS mandates that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence without providing the accused such an opportunity. In a complaint filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA post-July 1, 2024, the Special Judge's failure to afford this pre-cognizance hearing renders the cognizance order liable to be set aside. The Court set aside the Special Court's cognizance order dated November 20, 2024, for non-compliance with this mandatory requirement, which was not present in the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the provisions of Chapter 16 (Sections 223 to 226) of the BNSS apply to PMLA complaints, and the absence of a pre-cognizance hearing justified quashing the order. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the appellant to appear before the Special Court for a hearing as per the proviso to Section 223(1). Issues regarding the scope of the pre-cognizance hearing and cognizance in supplementary complaints were left open for the Special Court to decide. Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 642 : 2025 INSC 760

Section 45(1)(ii) – Regular Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Supreme Court allowed the appeal for regular bail to the Appellant, Mahesh Joshi, former Minister of Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Rajasthan, in a case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the PMLA – Held, Constitutional Courts must intervene to safeguard the right to personal liberty under Article 21 where a trial cannot be reasonably concluded and incarceration becomes prolonged - Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA cannot be interpreted to justify indefinite detention, especially in cases with voluminous, document-heavy material where the trial is unlikely to begin promptly - The extraordinary powers to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, notwithstanding statutory provisions like Section, can be exercised by the Constitutional Courts (under Article 32 or Article 226) if they conclude there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time - Appellant had remained in custody for over seven months - Noted that case record is entirely documentary, involving 66 witnesses, 184 documents, and more than 14,600 pages, and the proceedings are still at the stage of supply of copy of the police report and other documents under Section 207, CrPC - These circumstances indicate that the commencement of the trial is not imminent and the trial itself is not likely to conclude in the near future, requiring closer scrutiny in light of constitutional considerations - Directed the appellant to be released on bail - Appeal allowed. [Relied on V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626; Paras 13-18] Sh Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1166 : 2025 INSC 1377

Section 45 - Bail - Trial Delay and Prolonged Custody - Prolonged detention under stringent laws like PMLA, coupled with delays violating the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, warrants bail. The Court distinguished Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201 where bail was canceled due to shorter custody (less than seven months) and no trial delay, clarifying that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were not universally overriding when trial delays and prolonged detention were evident. The appeal was allowed, and bail was granted. [Paras 4, 5] Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 229 : 2025 INSC 247

Section 45 - Duty of Courts to Uphold Fundamental Rights - The Court reiterated that when a court finds that the fundamental rights of an accused have been violated during or after arrest, it is the court's duty to release the accused on bail. The illegality of the arrest vitiates the detention, and bail cannot be denied based on the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional rights and the rule of law in criminal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's bail was upheld. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : 2025 INSC 141

Section 45 - Money Laundering is not an ordinary offence, having a transnational impact on financial systems, sovereignty, and integrity of nations. Casual or cryptic bail orders ignoring Section 45's rigours are unjustifiable. Twin conditions - i) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—are mandatory, even for bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (Para 17, 21) Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201 : 2025 INSC 210 : AIR 2025 SC 1028

Section 45 - Production at Bail Stage - At the bail stage under Section 45 PMLA, the accused can invoke Section 91 CrPC to seek production of unrelied upon documents. The ED may object if disclosure prejudices ongoing investigations, but courts may deny production only if satisfied that disclosure would harm the investigation. (Para 52, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 45 - Production at Bail Stage - At the bail stage under Section 45 PMLA, the accused can invoke Section 91 CrPC to seek production of unrelied upon documents. The ED may object if disclosure prejudices ongoing investigations, but courts may deny production only if satisfied that disclosure would harm the investigation. (Para 52, 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 50 - Mandatory Document Disclosure - Upon taking cognizance of a prosecution complaint, the Special Judge must provide the accused with: (i) Copies of the complaint and statements recorded by the Special Judge before cognizance. (ii) Documents and statements under Section 50 PMLA produced with the complaint, including those filed subsequently until cognizance. (iii) Copies of supplementary complaints and documents. (iv) A list of unrelied upon documents, statements, and material objects. (Para 55) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

Section 50 - Money laundering is an independent offence, and the accused need not be involved in the predicate offence to be summoned under PMLA. The protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) does not apply to statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA when a person is summoned as a witness, as no formal accusation exists at that stage. (Para 18, 22) Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201 : 2025 INSC 210 : AIR 2025 SC 1028

The argument that proceedings under the PMLA are invalid due to the amount involved not meeting the statutory threshold of Rs. 30 lakhs (prior to amendment) is rejected. The determination of the threshold must be based on the entirety of the transaction and the overall financial trail, not isolated instances. The alleged proceeds of crime, including land allotment fraud, hawala transactions, and illegal gratification, significantly exceeded the threshold. The totality of evidence, even on a prima facie assessment, indicated that the proceeds of crime were substantially higher than the statutory limit, rendering the appellant's reliance on the threshold baseless. (Para 26 - 29) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311 : 2025 INSC 349 : AIR 2025 SC 1940 : (2025) 4 SCC 818

The Court set aside the High Court's ruling that the prosecution is not obligated to provide unrelied upon documents at the pre-trial stage, holding that such denial violates the accused's rights under Article 21. (Para 56) Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541 : 2025 INSC 645 : (2025) 7 SCC 626

The PMLA was enacted to implement the international resolutions and declarations made by the General Assembly of United Nations, and prevent money laundering as also to provide for confiscation of properties derived therefrom or involved in money laundering. The subject matter of PMLA therefore is traceable or relatable to the Entry-13 of Union List (List-I) of Seventh Schedule. (Para 35) National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 577 : 2025 INSC 694 : (2025) 8 SCC 393

The Supreme Court allowed the Enforcement Directorate's appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration by a different bench, without expressing an opinion on the merits. The Court stressed that non-compliance with Section 45's mandatory requirements renders bail orders legally unsustainable. Courts must uphold PMLA's objectives by rigorously applying these conditions, given the serious nature of money laundering offences. (Para 17, 21) Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201 : 2025 INSC 210 : AIR 2025 SC 1028

Allahabad High Court

No Violation Of Natural Justice Principles If Accused Not Given Advance Copy Of S. 50 PMLA Application: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Udhaw Singh vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 850 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55

The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that not providing an advanced copy of the application filed by the Director of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to the accused does not violate the principles of natural justice, as the accused has no right to oppose it.

'False Allegations': Allahabad HC Rejects PMLA Accused Plea To Transfer Case Over Alleged ₹1 Crore Bribe Demand By Judge

Case title - Brahma Prakash Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 226

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by a PMLA accused seeking transfer of the Case against him from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Court PMLA to another Court on the ground that the presiding judge had demanded Rs. 1 Crore as bribe from him.

Terming the allegations of bribery as false and imaginary, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the transfer plea was clearly a tactic to avoid trial before the court, which had passed multiple judicial orders against the petitioner.

Serious Doubt That ED Clerk Assigned To Desk Work Can Serve Summons: Allahabad High Court Flags 'Improper' Service In PMLA Case

Case title - Rajeev Nayan Mishra @ Rajeev Nayan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. Of India Lko. Zonal Office Lko.

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 406

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) raised serious doubts over the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) action to serve summons in a money-laundering case linked to the alleged UP Police recruitment paper leak, though an Upper Division Clerk (UDC), who is typically assigned desk works.

Granting anticipatory bail to the accused, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the service of summons by an ED clerk was not in the proper manner and that he was not aware of modern technology that could be incorporated in serving the summons.

'Prima Facie Cheating Case Made Out': Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash ED's Probe Against Sahara's Cooperative Societies

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 410

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused to quash the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) action of initiating search and seizure proceedings against four Sahara-linked cooperative societies.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that a prima facie case of cheating was made out and that the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be interfered with merely because a closure report has been filed in one of the predicate offences.

Bombay High Court

S.42 PLMA Excludes Applicability Of Section 5 Limitation Act, Delay In Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned Beyond 120 Days: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22

The Bombay High Court has held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be condoned by the High Court beyond 120 days as stipulated in the provision. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan stated that Section 42 PMLA excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits the court to condone delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated period.

Bombay High Court's 'Strong Message' To ED: Act As Per Law, Don't Harass Citizens; Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

Case Title: Rakesh Brijlal Jain vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 25

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday while imposing an exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) observed that it is high time that the central agencies like the ED should conduct themselves within the parameters of law and stop taking the law in the own hands and harass citizens. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said a 'strong message' needs to be sent to the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the citizens are not harassed.

Bombay HC 'Disappointed' With CBI & Mumbai Police Showing Reluctance To Probe Multi-Crore Money Laundering Case; Orders Formation Of SIT

Case Title: Shoaib Richie Sequeira vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 46

The Bombay High Court recently expressed 'disappointment' over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police, both showing 'reluctance' to investigate into the complaints of multi-crore fraud by a company both in India and also several foraging countries. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan noted that both the EOW as well as the CBI, for the reasons best known to these Agencies, were reluctant to inquire/investigate into the complaints made by one Shoaib Sequeira accusing one Anand Jain, promoter of Jai Corporation Ltd. and its subsidiaries of misappropriating public funds and laundering the same outside India.

Maharashtra Sadan Scam: Bombay High Court Quashes ED's Money Laundering Case Against Chamankar Brothers

Case Title: Krishna Shantaram Chamankar vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

In a major relief to the Chamankar brothers, one of the prime accused in the Maharashtra Sadan Scam case involving State Cabinet Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 16) quashed the case lodged against them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil quashed the ED case lodged under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Krishna and Prasanna Chamankar (both brothers) owning the KS Chamankar Enterprises, the contractor, who was accused of fraudulently obtaining the contract.

Calcutta High Court

Ex-Director Cannot Be Compelled To Represent Company In PMLA Case: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Suman Chattopadhyay v. Enforcement Directorate

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a former director cannot be forced to represent a company in a money-laundering case after he has left the company.

Allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the former director of Dish Pruduction and Media Ltd, a bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee ruled that the prosecution has no power to decide who should appear on behalf of a company in court.

Chhattisgarh High Court

Legislature Must Relax Rigid Conditions U/S 45 PMLA To Allow Room For Bail Determination On Case-By-Case Basis: Chhattisgarh HC

In a significant observation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has said that in the interest of upholding the fundamental rights of the citizens, the legislature must relax the 'rigid' twin conditions under Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act to provide 'wiggle room' to the courts to determine bail on a more case-to-case basis.

Delhi High Court

'Not A Minor Offence, Part Of Crime Syndicate': Delhi HC Denies Bail To PMLA Accused Booked For Supplying Spurious Anti-Cancer Medicines

Gujarat High Court

'Influenced Witnesses While In Custody, Many Antecedents': Gujarat High Court Denies Bail To Mahesh Langa In Money Laundering Case

Case title: MAHESHDAN PRABHUDAN LANGA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 120

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the regular bail plea of journalist Mahesh Langa in a money laundering case lodged in connection with two FIRs which included the offence of cheating, observing that he had a number of antecedents and that while being in custody he had influenced witnesses.

For context, a sessions court had in November last year granted anticipatory bail to Langa in a cheating FIR registered against him on a complaint filed by an individual running an advertising agency. The court had granted the bail after noting that as per the contents of the FIR, the dispute between the parties was for non payment of money which is "primarily in civil nature". It had then also noted that the alleged cheating had happened between March 2023 and October this year and the complainant had not explained the delay in filing the complaint.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Existence Of "Proceeds Of Crime" Is Pre-Condition For Money-Laundering: J&K High Court Quashes PMLA Complaints In Alleged ₹250 Cr Scam

Case Title: Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs Directorate Of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

Underscoring the necessity of the existence of "proceeds of crime" for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that in the absence of such proceeds, no money-laundering offence could arise.

Jharkhand High Court

S.45 PMLA Turns Principle Of Bail Is Rule & Jail Is Exception 'On Its Head': Jharkhand HC Denies Bail In ₹750-Crore Fake GST Invoice Case

Case Title: Mohit Deora v. Union of India

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 84

The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with its twin conditions, “turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head.”

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad made this observation while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in the creation of fake companies for passing on ineligible input tax credit by issuing fake GST bills without any actual supply of goods or services. The petitioner, the son of the main accused, was said to be part of the conspiracy and one of the beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime generated by his father.

“Crime Against Country's Economic Health, Has Cascading Effect on Taxpayers”: Jharkhand HC Denies Bail In Rs 522 Cr PMLA Case

Case Title: Amit Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 88

The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant bail to Amit Gupta (applicant), who was accused of coordinating 135 shell companies allegedly to generate fake invoices, irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC), and fraudulent e-way bills, causing a purported loss of over Rs.522.91 crores to Government exchequer.

As the applicant had miserably failed to satisfy the Court that reasonable grounds existed for believing that he was not guilty of the alleged offences, and in light of the “sophisticated modus operandi employed” by the organised syndicate in commission of the offences, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held,

“…the allegations levelled against the applicant are of an extremely grave and serious nature, striking at the very foundation of the country's economic and financial system. They pertain to fraudulent transactions running into hundreds of crores of rupees, executed through a complex and deliberate layering of illicit funds, and culminating in the acquisition and projection of properties derived from such tainted sources as untainted assets. The applicant's activities have been found to be indispensable to the layering and integration stages of the laundering process, involving multiple shell companies and bank accounts under his de facto control. Thus, the magnitude of the fraud, its organized nature, and the systematic siphoning of funds, the present case strikes at the core of the country's economic and financial fabric. The fraudulent availment and passing of fake ITC not only caused direct financial loss to the Government but also undermined the sanctity of the GST regime, which is based on self-declaration and trust.”

Prior Criminal Sanction Not For Shielding Corruption: Jharkhand HC Upholds Cognizance Against Ex-IAS Officer Pooja Singhal

Title: Pooja Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to acts reasonably connected with the discharge of official duties, and not to personal or illegal acts merely because they are committed by a public servant. The Court clarified that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not intended to shield corrupt officials from criminal prosecution.

A Single Judge Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Ambuj Nath was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 19 July 2022 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Ranchi, in ECIR Case No. 03 of 2018. By the impugned order, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Karnataka High Court

ED Can't Trample Upon Individual Liberty & Privacy, Search & Seizure Operations Must Adhere To Procedural Fairness Under PMLA: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 32956 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 33

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot give the elements of procedural fairness contained in the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) a go-by in the course of its administration.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by former Commissioner of Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Dr Natesha D B, during whose tenure alleged illegal allotment of land sites was made to Chief Minister Siddaramiah's wife Paravathi.

Karnataka High Court Allows ED To Access Aadhar Database For Probing Case Under PMLA

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement AND Union of India & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30424 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) and directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to permit ED to examine the Aadhar database of 21 persons including the identity information or authentication records, while probing a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A single judge, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar while allowing the petition said “An investigation into an offence of money laundering being legitimate state interest and the petitioner herein being statutorily empowered to investigate into an offence under PMLA, it is appropriate that a Mandamus be granted directing the respondent No.2 to disclose the true identities of those as sought for herein.”

[PMLA] ED Can Summon Persons Not Named As Accused In Schedule Offence If Schedule Offence Is Pending: Karnataka HC

Case Title: R M Manjunath Gowda AND Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WA NO. 497 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 125

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that for issuance of summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the person need not be an accused in the schedule (predicate) offence if it is pending.

Justice V Kameshwar Rao and S Rachaiah held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by R M Manjunath Gowda, former Chairman of Shivamogga DCC Bank, challenging a single judge order which had dismissed its petition seeking to quash the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Release Of Congress MLA KC Veerendra Arrested In 'Illegal Betting' Case

Case Title: R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 26754/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (October 15) dismissed the petition filed by wife of Congress MLA KC Veerendra for declaring his arrest in an alleged illegal betting case under PMLA as illegal, arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights and to release him.

Justice MI Arun said, "It is only on the ground that one FIR is alive in which 'B' report is filed that allows them (ED) to proceed."Observations made herein above are in relation to case in hand and if petitioner were to make any application for bail the same would be considered by the court in accordance with law. If the 'B' report were to be accepted by the trial court in FIR no...petitioner would be at liberty to make necessary application for quashing of proceedings against him" the court said.

PMLA Tribunal Cannot Remand Back Order Of Attachment Passed By Adjudicating Authority For Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD.

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has no power to remand back to consider afresh the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the provisional attachment order.

A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate and said “Tribunal is creation of the Statute and it exercises limited power as conferred on it, by the Statute. There is no inherent power in a Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal is not a regular Court. If the Statute does not confer a power of remand, and there is no inherent power vested in the Tribunal, it cannot remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority unless it is specifically provided in the Statute itself.”

Properties Mortgaged To Bank For Advancement Of Loans Cannot Be Attached Under PMLA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Deputy Director AND Asadullah Khan

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2020 C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020, MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2020 & MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2020.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court has held that properties which are mortgaged to the Bank are not the proceeds of crime, and an attachment order cannot be passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in respect of the properties mortgaged to the Bank for the advancement of loans.

A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, which allowed the appeals filed by the accused challenging the confirmation order of attachment regarding seven properties and quashed the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Kerala High Court

PMLA | For Acts Done Prior To Enactment Penalty Follows Only If Proceeds Of Crime Are Utilized, Article 20(1) Is Not Violated: Kerala HC

Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213

The Kerala High Court has held that Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not penalize a person for his past actions, but penal consequences only follow when the accused utilizes the proceeds of the crime from past actions for money laundering after the enactment of PMLA and the amendment to its schedule in 2009.

The Court thus held that Section 3 of the PMLA criminalizes the act of money laundering and does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

The appellant/petitioners had assailed the act of the Enforcement Directorate on the ground that penalising a person for any act done in the past on the basis of subsequent legislation is prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that there is no retrospective application of penal laws and hence there is no violation of Article 20 (1).

BNSS & BSA Grant Discretion To Summon, Examine Witnesses Allowing Trial Courts To Determine How To Proceed In PMLA Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213

The Kerala High Court has held that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam (BSA) grant discretion in the manner for summoning and examining witnesses, allowing the Trial Court to determine whether to proceed with the PMLA trial or to keep it in abeyance until the predicate offence trial is concluded.

A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that delaying the PMLA trial until the conclusion of the trial in the predicate offence could result in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) losing key witnesses. However, the Court also pointed out that if the accused is acquitted of the predicate offence, the PMLA trial would ultimately be rendered futile.

Kerala High Court Recommends Centre To Amend Criminal Procedural Law, Special Statutes To Effectively Prosecute Dissolved Companies

Case Title: Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466

In a case concerning prosecution of a dissolved company accused of cheating various nursing aspirants of over Rs 100 crore, the Kerala High Court recommended to the Parliament to amend the criminal procedural law and if need be special statutes, for effective prosecution of dissolved companies.

Justice A. Badharudeen in his order observed that Section 70 of PMLA Act does not distinguish a company as existing company or non existing company; at the same time, the "procedure law is silent" on how a company or corporation or society is prosecuted

Madras High Court

'Why Didn't ED Wait For Outcome Of Complaint?' : Madras High Court Stays ED Attachment Of Director Shankar's Property Over Copyright Dispute

Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crore of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba. Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had passed the order provisionally attaching the property.

"Further Incarceration Would Violate Rights Under Article 21": Madras HC Grants Bail To Former DMK Functionary Jaffer Sadiq Arrested By ED

Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145

The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case.

Considering that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future, Justice Sunder Mohan opined that further incarceration would violate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the court was inclined to grant bail on certain conditions to ensure that the duo would be available to face trial.

The court thus ordered them to be released on bail upon executing a bond for the sum of Rs. 5 lakh each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for CBI cases. The court also directed the parties to surrender their passport before the Special court if it is not already seized by the ED. The court directed the duo to appear before the trial judge regularly and gave liberty to the ED to seek cancellation of bail if their absence was not justified.

Madras High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging ED Search Of TASMAC Headquarters

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 147

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (April 23) dismissed pleas by State Government and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation challenging the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and March 8.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar while pronouncing the verdict observed that in money laundering cases, a few inconvenience in the procedure when equated against the economic justice, the latter prevails. The court also gave liberty to the ED to proceed with the investigation.

Also rejecting State's contention that the searches were politically motivated, in view of the upcoming assembly elections, the Court said it cannot examine such allegations.

S.50 PMLA | Confession Made To ED Not Hit By Evidence Act, Whether Made Voluntarily Or Coercively Would Be Decided At Trial: Madras HC

Case Title: S Nagarajan v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 167

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, who record statements of accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, are not police officers and such statements would not come under the Indian Evidence Act.

The court added that whether the statements were recorded voluntarily or under coercion could be decided only on trial and such a defence could not be brought in during the discharge stage.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima gave a split verdict in a criminal revision petition filed by a man charged under Section 4 of the PMLA. Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the order of discharge by the Special Court was virtually a non-speaking order and vitiated by non-application of mind and thus remitted the matter back to the Special Court for fresh adjudication. Justice Poornima, however found prima facie material to proceed against the accused and thus dismissed the plea.

'ED Search Without Jurisdiction': Madras High Court Stays Proceedings Against Film Producer, Asks ED To Return Seized Materials

Case Title: Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 208

The Madras High Court has stayed all proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran. The court also directed ED to return all materials seized from the petitioners.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that the authorisation based on which the ED had conducted searches at the offices and residences of the petitioners was prima facie without jurisdiction since there was no incriminating material against them. The court also observed that the materials produced by the ED had no semblance of any information based on which the ED had decided to take action against the petitioners.

ED Is Not A “Super Cop” Or “Loitering Munition” To Investigate Everything Coming To Its Notice: Madras High Court

Case Title: R.K.M Powergen Private Limited v. The Assistant Director and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 245

The Madras High Court has reiterated that the Enforcement Directorate can initiate action only upon the existence of a predicate offence and cannot conduct investigations on its own.

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that ED was not a super cop to investigate anything and everything that came to its notice. The court stressed that there must be criminal activity coming within the schedule of the Act, and there should be proceeds of crime based on which the ED will have jurisdiction to commence an investigation.

The court stressed that if an act was to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and no other way. The court added that if the ED was allowed to conduct an investigation merely on coming to know about any activity, the ED would be conducting roving enquiry.

Supplementary Complaint Under PMLA Doesn't Require Fresh Cognizance: Madras High Court

Case Title: Rahul Surana v. The Assistant Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

The Madras High Court recently observed that a supplementary complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not a fresh or independent complaint requiring the court to take cognisance.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that a supplementary complaint is a part and parcel of the main complaint for which cognisance has already been taken. The court added that taking multiple cognisance for the same offence would render the judicial process redundant and would result in a delay in the justice delivery process.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Bank Fraud | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under PMLA On Grounds Of Long Incarceration

Title: Neeraj Saluja v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 31

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to the former director of SEL Textiles Limited Neeraj Saluja in a money laundering case, accused of diverting loan amount for purposes other than what it was sanctioned for.

[PMLA] 'No Possibility Of Trial Being Concluded In Reasonable Time': Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail To Builder Accused Of Cheating Home Buyers

Title: Sikandar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 45

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a director of a company accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for fabricating bank guarantees as well as cheating 1500 prospective home buyers.

PMLA | Not Mandatory For Court To Conclude That Accused Is Innocent Before Granting Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Title: Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 146

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that for the purpose of granting bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), it is not a mandatory requirement that the Court must arrive at a finding that the petitioner had not committed any offence under the PMLA.

ED Can Inspect Court Files, Documents Attached In Complaint Filed By Income Tax Dept: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Title: Amrinder Singh & Ors v. IT Department & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 354

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that Enforcement Directorate (ED) can inspect documents filed before the Court with complaint lodged by the Income Tax ( I.T.) Department.

The complaint was filed by the I.T. Department against the petitioners under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, read with the provisions of the IPC, wherein information in the form of master sheets originally received in Paris, France, by the authority of the Foreign Tax was placed on record.

'Remained Uncooperative': Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Ex-MLA Dharam Singh Chokker's Plea Challenging ED Arrest In PMLA Case

Title: DHARAM SINGH CHHOKER v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 361

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chokker, who had challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

'Stranger' Facing No Direct Prejudice Can't Seek Cancellation Of Bail: P&H High Court Declines Plea Against IREO MD's Bail In PMLA Case

Title: Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 374

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to cancel the bail granted to the Managing Director of IREO Group, observing that a stranger to the case, who has not suffered any direct prejudice, has no legal standing to seek cancellation of bail.

'Money Laundering Is Independent Offence': P&H High Court Rejects Sukhpal Khaira's Plea To Defer PMLA Trial In View Of Stay On NDPS Case

Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 414

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed Punjab Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira's plea seeking to set aside an order of the Special Court refusing to defer trial in a money laundering case registered against him.

Khaira argued that since the trial in the NDPS case remained stayed in view of State of Punjab's statement before the Supreme Court, continuation of the PMLA trial would be contrary to law.

Rajasthan High Cour

Right To Travel Abroad: Rajasthan High Court Permits Foreign Visit Of PMLA Accused Subject To ₹25 Lakh Bank Guarantee

Title: Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a man, arrested in a PMLA case, to travel to Dubai and Singapore for business meetings— reiterating that the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to go abroad.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) where it was held that “the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law”.

Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Ex-Minister Accused Of Taking ₹2 Crore Bribe To Award Illegal Tenders Under Jal Jeevan Mission

Title: Mahesh Joshi v Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 290

The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Congress leader and former Minister for Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Mahesh Joshi booked in a PMLA case for allegedly colluding to facilitate grant of illegal tenders under Jal Jeevan Mission and receiving "bribe" of Rs. 2 Crores for the same as well as laundering funds.

Justice Praveer Bhatnagar perused the evidence submitted on records by the investigating officers, and opined that the evidence clearly demonstrated Joshi's involvement in the alleged offence.

"The investigation into the corruption case has revealed significant misconduct involving co-accused Padam Chand and Mahesh Mittal, who are alleged to have secured government tenders through unethical and corrupt practices. It has come to light that a close associate of the petitioner, Sanjay Badaya, was implicated in receiving bribes from contractors, which facilitated the manipulation of official assignments to favour certain individuals or entities. This connection raises substantial concerns regarding the petitioner's integrity and involvement in these corrupt dealings".

Seizure Of ₹2 Crore, Gold Bar From Govt Officer's Home Can't Relate To Official Act; Sanction For Prosecution Not Needed: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ved Prakash Yadav v/s Directorate Of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 359

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a public servant's plea booked in a corruption case who had challenged an order taking cognizance of offences under PMLA on the ground that no prior sanction was taken as per Section 218 BNSS.

In doing so the court observed that there were over Rs 2 crore cash and a gold bar worth over Rs 60 Lakh seized from the petitioner's residence and the same cannot relate to any act allegedly committed in discharge of the public servant's duty; thus prior sanction for prosecution is not needed.

Can Arrest Warrants Be Converted To Bailable Warrants In Serious Economic Offence Cases? Rajasthan High Court Refers To Larger Bench

Title: Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

The Rajasthan High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether arrest warrants can be converted to bailable warrants in serious economic offences under the provisions of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Customs, CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax), as well as heinous offences punishable under Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that, “creation of fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoices and thereby passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries and thus evading tax in crores of rupees, which affects the economy of the nation, and the same would certainly fall within the purview of grave economic offences.”