#proceeds of crime

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹25 crore SAFEMA attachment, holding that the Enforcement Directorate failed to establish any nexus between the appellants' legitimate pre-existing business transactions and the alleged YES Bank-DHFL proceeds of crime. The ruling clarifies that lawful business dealings routed through banking channels cannot be presumed as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a direct link to the scheduled offence, protecting genuine commercial transactions from overbroad attachment.

Granting bail, the Court held that assets acquired before scheduled offence period cannot be treated as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a temporal nexus to alleged criminal activity. Court found no such link for the petitioner’s overseas assets.

The court ruled that offences under the Public Gambling Act do not constitute 'gang' activity under the U.P. Gangsters Act, and a vehicle purchased before any FIR was registered cannot be confiscated merely because loan EMIs were paid post-FIR without concrete evidence linking those payments to criminal proceeds. This decision protects pre-acquisition assets from speculative attachment under the Act.

Allahabad HC quashes PMLA proceedings against a real estate developer, ruling that loan defaults arising from delayed project delivery do not constitute money laundering. The court held that property acquired before the alleged offence cannot be attached as proceeds of crime, reinforcing that civil disputes cannot be criminalized under PMLA.

Gauhati High Court rules that provisional attachment orders under PMLA Section 5 must explicitly disclose the 'reason to believe' to comply with natural justice. The court also clarifies that properties representing proceeds of crime can be attached even if acquired before the scheduled offence, reinforcing ED's attachment powers.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that under the PMLA, property acquired prior to a scheduled offense cannot be classified as proceeds of crime merely based on its value or timing of acquisition. The ED must establish a direct nexus between the property and the offense, reinforcing that mere possession or unexplained wealth is insufficient for attachment - a critical safeguard for law-abiding property owners caught in enforcement dragnets.

Bombay High Court rules that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) prevails over the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act, denying secured creditors priority over attached proceeds of crime. Creditors must approach the Special Court under Section 8(8) of PMLA for relief, reinforcing the Act's overriding confiscatory regime.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arrest under PMLA is valid if the Enforcement Directorate establishes a credible link between unaccounted assets and a scheduled offence by the time of arrest, even if the FIR is registered after the ECIR but before detention. This clarifies that post-facto linkage of proceeds suffices for subjective satisfaction under Section 19, significantly expanding investigative flexibility without requiring prior criminal charges.

The Madras High Court ruled that property acquired before a predicate offence can still be classified as 'proceeds of crime' under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) if it is subsequently used to launder illicit gains through lease renewals or operational reinvestment. This decision reinforces the Enforcement Directorate's power to attach assets linked to money laundering, even if the property predates the criminal activity.

Madras High Court holds that cash seized under NDPS Act cannot be retained indefinitely without invoking Section 68-F; procedural compliance is mandatory.

Bombay High Court quashes PMLA proceedings against accused where property acquisition predates scheduled offence, clarifying that proceeds of crime must originate before laundering activity.