Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 10

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
BALESH KUMAR, Member, RAJESH MALHOTRA, Member
Smt. Anita Bansal – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi – Respondent
MP-PMLA-4712/DLI/2018 (Misc.)|MP-PMLA-4494/DLI/2018 (Stay)|FPA-PMLA-2315/DLI/2018|MP-PMLA-4495/DLI/2018 (Stay)|MP-PMLA-4512/DLI/2018 (Exem.)|FPA-PMLA-2316/DLI/2018|MP-PMLA-8471/DLI/2021 (Misc.)|MP-PMLA-4486/DLI/2018 (Stay)|FPA-PMLA-2306/DLI/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants :Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Jaiveer Shergill, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate

Attachment of property under PMLA is valid if there's a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime, regardless of ownership disputes or financial contributions from co-owners.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(u), 5, and 8 - Provisional attachment of property - Appeal against attachment confirmed due to alleged involvement in money laundering - Appellants claimed no culpability; property attachment deemed arbitrary without proper inquiry - Legal ownership and financial contributions disputed, with emphasis on natural justice - The court emphasized the necessity for a prima facie connection between the property and proceeds of crime - Established ownership percentages relevant for property attachment were upheld. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 11, 19)

(B) The court noted that attachment proceedings under the PMLA hinge on establishing a prima facie link to proceeds of crime without requiring physical eviction or partition of property. (Paras 10, 14)

(C) The contention that financial contributions negate attachment was rejected, underscoring the statutory nature of ownership under the Act. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
Appeals were dismissed involving residential property attachments under the PMLA, alleging financial contributions and the absence of criminal culpability from the appellants. Provisional Attachment Orders were deemed valid due to insufficient inquiries into ownership contributions prior to attachment.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to confirm the attachment, determining that sufficient grounds existed for the action under the PMLA without legal flaws.

Issues: Whether the attachment of property is sustainable under the PMLA and if due process was observed regarding the appellants' rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the nexus between property and proceeds of crime is sufficient for attachment under the PMLA. Legal ownership claims made without corresponding rights under the Act do not mitigate statutory provisions mandating property attachment.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. provisional attachment of property details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. failure of due process in attachment proceedings. (Para 5 , 6)
3. allegations involving money laundering and its connection to proceeds of crime. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. legality of ownership and the right to attach property. (Para 9)
5. court's analytical reasoning regarding attachment under pmla. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. correctness of the exercise of jurisdiction under pmla. (Para 18)
7. dismissal of the appeals. (Para 19)

FINAL ORDER

05.02.2026

This Order disposes of the Appeal Nos. FPA-PMLA-2315/DLI/2018 filed by Smt. Anita Bansal, FPA-PMLA-2316/DLI/2018 filed by Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal and FPA- PMLA-2306/DLI/2018 filed by Shri Prateek Bansal respectively, against the Order dated 26.03.2018 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 845/2017 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 11/2017 dated 06.10.2017 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. ECIR/11/DLZO/2016 dated 30.11.2016 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the residential property bearing No. B-20, Moonlight Apartments, 70 IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 has been attached to the extent of 50% and such attachment has been mechanically confirmed, ignoring material facts, legal submissions and the rights of family members having substantial and lawful interest in the said property. Ld. Counsels submitted that the attached property is the matrimonial and family home of the Appellants Smt. Anita Bansal and Sh. Ravinder Nath Bansal. They have been residing continuously in the said property, which is also shared by their son, Shri Prateek Bansal. Ld. Counsel contended that there is no allegation whatsoever against Smt. Anita Bansal and Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), yet their residential house has been subjected to attachment, without enquiry, notice or consideration of their lawful rights and financial contributions.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the property was purchased in the year 2012 for a total consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-, and the purchase as well as subsequent loan repayments were made through clearly identifiable, legitimate sources contributed by all three family members. The simplistic assumption of 50:50 ownership between Smt. Anita Bansal and Sh. Prateek Bansal, solely on the basis of the registration document, is arbitrary, mechanical and legally unsustainable, particularly when the property in question is a residential flat with common facilities, which is indivisible and cannot be partially attached without gravely prejudicing the rights of other occupants.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the actual financial contributions towards the acquisition and repayment of the property demonstrate that all three Appellants have substantial and legally enforceable interests therein. The attached property at Moonlight Apartments, 70-IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 was originally purchased in 2012 for Rs. 42,00,000/-. Shri Prateek Bansal paid Rs. 26,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid to him by his father Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal. Thus Prateek Bansal, originally effectively paid Rs. 11,00,000/-. Smt. Anita Bansal paid Rs. 16,00,000/-. Later with the understanding among the family members, Shri Prateek Bansal, took a loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- from HDB Financial Ltd., which was later rolled over to Citi Bank. Shri Prateek Bansal, took this loan and his parents Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal and Smt. Anita Bansal were co- borrowers. Out of the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Shri Prateek Bansal paid Rs. 8,85,000/- to his father Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal. Till December 2017, Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal repaid Rs. 10,60,000/- of the bank loan (including interest). Till December 2017, Smt. Anita Bansal repaid Rs. 8,92,000/- of the ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document