Delhi High Court: While hearing an appeal filed under Section 42, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), assailing the order dated 27 November 2025 (impugned order) whereby the Tribunal had upheld the provisional attachment order issued by the respondent Directorate of Enforcement, the Division Judge Bench of Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja*, JJ. held that an ancestral or inherited property could also be attached as “proceeds of crime” if the property represents value equivalent to proceeds of crime generated from scheduled offences.
Background
According to the appellant, the subject property attached by the respondent had been in his family continuously since 1991, having been purchased by the father of the appellant out of his own income. The appellant argued that the subject property could not have been attached as “value thereof” in terms of Section 2(1)(u) PMLA since the said property was never actually purchased by the appellant himself. The right of the appellant in the subject property has flown through his deceased father and thus, it was wholly impermissible to rely upon Section 2(1)(u) PMLA to attach the said property.
Per contra, the respondent submitted that the proceeds of crime acquired by the appellant in the form of foreign exchange, had been remitted abroad and were not available and therefore the subject property belonging to the appellant was attached as “equivalent value” by order passed under Section 5 read with Section 2(1)(u) PMLA and such action is therefore within statutory framework.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the primary question for adjudication was whether the subject property, which was neither acquired no purchased by the appellant as proceeds of crime, could have been attached.
The Court referred to the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court had clarified that the definition of “proceeds of crime” is wide enough to not only refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also of the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with.
The Court observed that the adjudicating authority, upon appreciation of evidence, had recorded a finding that the property represents value equivalent to proceeds of crime generated from scheduled offences. Thus, the Court opined that the plea of the property being ancestral does not ipso facto grants immunity from attachment under the PMLA. The statute does not carve out an exception for ancestral or inherited properties, and thus, they are not immune from attachment.
The Court further stated that the argument that ancestral property cannot be attached unless purchased from illicit funds, is misconceived and contrary to the scheme of PMLA.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order suffered from no perversity or illegality and was therefore not liable to be set aside.
[Arun Suri v. Enforcement Directorate, Misc. Appl (PMLA) No. 13 of 2026, decided on 16-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Shubail Farook, Kshitij Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Anupam S. Sharrma, Advocate