Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi: In an appeal challenging the confirmation of a provisional attachment order (PAO) by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), arising out of an alleged online gaming fraud involving the “FIEWIN” application, V. Anandarajan (Member) dismissed the appeal and held that proceedings before the adjudicating authority do not become redundant merely because the Special Court passed an order of confiscation after issuance of the PAO but before filing of the original complaint. The Tribunal observed that the adjudication process under Section 8 PMLA is a statutory requirement following provisional attachment and that confiscation under Section 8(5) can arise only upon conclusion of trial and a finding that the offence of money laundering has been committed.
Background
The present appeal arises from an order dated 25 February 2025 passed by the adjudicating authority under the PMLA, confirming a PAO issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The matter originates from FIR dated 16 May 2023 registered at Cossipore Police Station under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against unknown persons associated with the online gaming application “FIEWIN” and others. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Sekhar Pal, who alleged that the online gaming platform induced users to participate in games by promising substantial winnings. Acting on such representations, the complainant invested approximately ₹ 21.69 lakhs through the application and allegedly became addicted to the gaming platform. Despite participating in the games and accruing winnings, the complainant alleged that the promised prize money was not paid, causing him substantial financial loss.
Since offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC constitute scheduled offences under the PMLA, the ED initiated an investigation and registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. KLZO-I/04/2024 on 21 February 2024. During the investigation, the ED examined the bank accounts of the complainant used for recharging his gaming wallet and obtained account statements from the banks concerned. Scrutiny of the financial records revealed that the complainant had transferred funds to several entities and individuals through different banking channels and had also received payments from various sources. The investigation disclosed total outward transactions amounting to ₹ 32,97,008, whereas the aggregate amount received from the FIEWIN application was ₹ 13,52,414.
Upon completion of the preliminary investigation, the ED issued a PAO on 19 September 2024, attaching certain properties alleged to be involved in money laundering. Thereafter, an original complaint was filed before the adjudicating authority on 17 October 2024 seeking confirmation of the attachment.
The adjudicating authority, by order dated 25 February 2025, confirmed the PAO. Aggrieved by the confirmation order, the appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the findings of the adjudicating authority.
Analysis and Decision
The Tribunal noted that the sole issue raised by the appellant was whether the order of confiscation passed by the Special Court on 7 October 2024, after issuance of the PAO dated 19 September 2024 but before filing of the original complaint (OC) before the adjudicating authority, rendered the proceedings before the adjudicating authority redundant. Rejecting the contention, the Tribunal observed that the scheme of Section 8 PMLA clearly contemplates that once a provisional attachment is made under Section 5(1), an OC is required to be filed before the adjudicating authority, which must thereafter issue notice, conduct adjudication proceedings and determine whether the attached properties are involved in money laundering. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had acted strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure by issuing notice, conducting adjudication and confirming the attachment under Section 8(3).
The Tribunal further observed that confiscation under Section 8(5) PMLA can arise only upon conclusion of trial and a finding by the Special Court that the offence of money laundering has been committed. Therefore, the mere passing of a confiscation order by the Special Court could not invalidate or render infructuous the proceedings before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal declined to examine the legality of the confiscation order itself, holding that such issue falls within the jurisdiction of the appropriate appellate forum against the order of the Special Court. It was also noted that the appellant had neither filed a reply to the show-cause notice nor raised the present contention before the adjudicating authority.
Decision
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order and no other grounds having been pressed, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal along with all pending applications, with no order as to costs.
Also Read: MP HC dismisses plea in SKNL bank fraud case
Also Read: PMLA: Delhi High Court lays down roadmap on retention & seizure in PMLA cases|
[Raghuman A. v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata, FPA-PMLA-625/KOL/2025, decided on 25-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Akshita Chand, Karan Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Chandra Prakash, Abhinav Kumar, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
