Karnataka High Court Grants Interim Relief To Lawyer Summoned By ED In Money Laundering Case

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) directed the Enforcement Directorate not to take any coercive steps or precipitative action against advocate Anil Gowda summoned by the agency in a money laundering case, till the high court passes orders on the interim relief. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said:“Both the parties have exchanged extensive pleadings. Matter requires consideration. This Court needs to go through the submissions and the statement of objections filed by the respondent. Since this Court needs to further examine the issue, more particularly bearing in mind that the core issue as to whether the Enforcement Directorate can exercise its power vested under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to a professional, which is already seized before the Honble Apex Court, this Court directs the respondent not to take any coercive steps or precipitative action till this Court passes orders on the interim prayer. Reserved for interim orders.” The petition challenged the legality of proceedings initiated by the ED under the PMLA including the summons dated 24.08.2025. The plea states that the ED's actions which include the registration of an ECIR and selective targeting of petitioner and K.C. Veerendra, a sitting MLA, is motivated by political vendetta to suppress opposition voices, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The plea states that the petitioner is an advocate and legal consultant to Veerendra. It is claimed that the ED proceedings are void ab initio, lack jurisdiction, and are driven by malafide intent rooted in political vendetta. It states that the ED's case relies on four FIRs spanning 10-15 years, alleging cricket betting and gambling, with Section 420 IPC as the predicate offence. However, no "proceeds of crime" exist as defined under Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 PMLA, as mandated by Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023). Further, the FIRs have either resulted in acquittals, quashing, or exclusion of key individuals, including the Petitioner, who is neither named nor chargesheeted. Allegations of betting do not constitute a scheduled offence under PMLA, and no credible evidence supports money-laundering activities, rendering the proceedings illegal, the plea states.The plea alleges that the ED is impermissibly investigating the predicate offence, exceeding its jurisdiction under PMLA, as evident from the Remand Application dated 24.08.2025, which reveals a fishing inquiry in conflict with the federal structure.Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for the petitioner referred to the Apex court order in the suo-motu case initiated on the issue of investigative agencies summoning advocates over their legal opinion given to clients. He argued that the legal advice given by the petitioner to Veerendra is protected. Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath opposed the plea contending that ED has not issued summons to Gowda in connection with his role as a lawyer. Rather, he is a partner in several commercial companies, including KC Veerendra's company, thus the summons were issued to an individual seeking his assistance to investigate a crime. The plea seeks a direction to set aside the Summons dated 24.08.2025 and any proceedings initiated thereto against him by the ED. It further seeks to declare that the initiation and continuation of proceedings by the respondent qua the Petitioner under the PMLA as illegal and bad in law. In the alternative the plea seeks a direction to the ED restraining it from compelling the petitioner to furnish any statement u/s 50 of the PML Act in a manner which amounts to testimonial compulsion and is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. By way of interim relief the petitioner has sought that pending disposal of the plea, the high court stays the Summons and also restrain the ED from conducting any further proceedings, or from taking any coercive actions against the petitioner. Case Title: Anil Gowda AND The Directorate Of EnforcementCase No: WP 26157/2025Appearance: Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, for Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel. Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath a/w CGC Madhukar DeshpandeClick Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Grants Interim Relief To Lawyer Summoned By ED In Money Laundering Case

Mustafa Plumber

Tags