The definition of 'Proceeds of Crime' in PMLA encompasses properties with equivalent value, permitting attachment even if acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence.

FINAL ORDER

08 .01.2026

The present appeal has been filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) dated 23.12.2020, in Original Complaint (OC) No. 1318/2020/PMLA, whereby, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, while confirming the attachment of movable property, has declined to confirm the provisional attachment of immovable properties.

2. The PMLA case arose from an FIR (FIR No. 936 dated 27.10.2016), in pursuance of which the Dibrugarh Police filed a Charge Sheet bearing No. 3/2017 dated 24.01.2017 in the Special Court, Guwahati against Shri Rakesh Kumar Paul the then Chairman of Assam Public Services Commission (APSC), Shri Samedur Rahaman and Shri Basanta Kumar Doley, Members of the APSC and certain others, invoking Sections 120B , 420, 463, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 , 13(1)(a),(b) and (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P. C. Act). Investigation conducted by the CBI revealed criminal activities related to recruitment of candidates in Government service in lieu of money. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Paul, the then Chairman of APSC, in connivance with other accused persons, had manipulated and engineered the answer booklets of Combined Competitive Examination of 2013 & 2014 by enhancing marks, replacing original answer booklets with forged booklets in respect of some candidates, thereby facilitating them in securing jobs in lieu of cash. It was further revealed that the manufactured/forged booklets were printed in the printing press of Shri Rajeev Kumar Paul, brother of Shri Rakesh Kumar Paul, an absconding accused. The answer booklets were given to some of the candidates for re- writing the answers after the examination was over. Shri Rakesh Kumar Paul, with the help of other co-accused, replaced the answer sheets. In the process, they also forged the signatures of invigilators and examiners and enhanced the marks of the candidates. The Dibrugarh Police, thereafter, filed nine more supplementary charge sheets from 2017 to 2019 under various Sections of the P. C. Act read with provisions of the IPC . Sections 463 , 468, 471, 477A/201 were also added against different accused persons.

3. Based on the charge sheet, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. 02/2017/GWZO dated 21.04.2017 and initiated investigations under the PMLA. Based on the findings of the investigations under the PMLA, a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was passed on 26.06.2020 attaching various immovable and movable properties of the appellants. An Original Complaint (OC) having been filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as per Section 5 (5) of the Act, the Ld. AA, while confirming the attachment of the movable property, declined to confirm the attachment of the immovable properties for the reason that

4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. AA to the extent it failed to confirm the attachment of the immovable properties, the ED has filed the present appeal impugning the said order. Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

5. At the outset, it is contended on behalf of the appellant (ED) that the Ld. AA has failed to interpret Section 2 (1)(u), Section 3 & Section 8 (3) of the PMLA, 2002 and passed the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 which is partly erroneous/ contrary to law and has failed to consider the definition of 'Proceeds of Crime' as defined under (1)(u) of PMLA after the amendment in the said definition through Finance Act (No. 2) of 2019 and also misinterpreted the intent of legislature and the definition of proceeds of crime to hold that a property of an equivalent value can only be attached when the proceeds of crime or the property involved has been taken outside the country thereby totally defeating the very purpose and scheme of the Act, i.e., preventing the accused from