Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 152

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CJ, GOPAL CHANDRA MISHRA, Member
Shri Dorjee Phuntso Khrime – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna, Bihar – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-1333/PTN/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellant(s): Counsel appeared
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nidhi Raman, Mr. Nikunj Bindal

The attachment of property equivalent in value to the proceeds of crime is valid irrespective of when the property was purchased, reinforcing broad definitions of 'proceeds of crime' and legal interpretations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(u), 5(1), and 8(1) - Provisional Attachment Order confirmed - Appellant, a key associate, involved in liquor syndicate, argued against attachment claiming property purchased prior to crime - Respondent asserts the property can be attached as equivalent to proceeds of crime - Appellant’s argument rejected, as attachment valid despite property acquisition timing - Significant definitions and interpretations regarding money laundering discussed, confirming the broad scope of 'proceeds of crime' under the Act. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19)

(B) Court’s Role - Court emphasizes that property can be attached for its equivalence to proceeds of crime, regardless of the timing of acquisition, to prevent evasion of jurisdiction by accused. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Appellant associated with a liquor syndicate, accused of enabling illegal liquor supply to several states, with Rs.9,30,75,450 in proceeds of crime linked to his operations. Appeal contests attachment of property allegedly obtained through legitimate funds, but defendants maintain clear ties to illicit revenue streams.

Findings of Court:
Provisional attachment of property is justified; the involvement in money laundering creates a valid basis for attachment regardless of when property was acquired.

Issues: Court examines if attachment of property is valid when acquired prior to alleged crime and the scope of ‘proceeds of crime.’

Ratio Decidendi: Interpretation of the Act established that properties of equivalent value can be attached even if procured before alleged criminal activities occurred, preventing potential abuse of the purchase timeline.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

19.02.2026

This appeal challenges the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO”) dated 05.12.2023.

Brief facts of the case:

2.It is a case where four FIRs were registered for commission of different offences out of which two were involving predicate offences. The main allegation was against Shri Sunil Bhardwaj for running M/s Kala AMB Distillery and Brewery Pvt. Ltd. and was operating liquor syndicate both within and outside the State of Bihar in collusion with accomplice Shri Dorjee Phuntso Khrime (appellant). The allegation was for illegal supply of liquor to the State of Bihar from the States of Haryana, West Bengal and Jharkhand. Many trucks containing large quantities of raw spirits and liquors from the States of Haryana, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh were seized by the Bihar Police.

3.So far as the appellant is concerned, he was a resident of Papum Pare, Itanagar Circle, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh said to be key associate of Shri Sunil Bhardwaj in the illegal supply of liquor to the State of Bihar. He was identified as a director in M/s Pristine Distilleries Pvt. Ltd and associated with entities such as M/s Tara Enterprises, M/s Pem Agros, M/s Shiva Enterprises, M/s Pem Ventures, M/s Infinity Agros, M/s Tata Enterprises, M/s North East Liquor, M/s Best Whole Sales Services, M/s Shipra North, M/s Auto Square and M/s Central Beer Bonded Warehouse.

4. The appellant and Shri Sunil Bhardwaj were arrested by the Bihar Police finding their involvement in illegal supply of liquor. The proceeds of crime involved in the commission of crime was found to be of Rs.9,30,75,450/-. The cash was deposited in cash in the bank accounts of several companies controlled by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the PAO of the property finding a case of money- laundering and involvement of the proceeds of crime.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant:

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has questioned the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority mainly on the ground that out of two FIRs registered for predicate offences, the appellant was involved only in FIR No. 1221/2022 dated 07.10.2022. The Patna High Court has quashed the allegation for commission of crime other than Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

6. In view of above, there exists no predicate offence against the appellant so as to allow the provisional attachment of the property to that extent.

7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, further, submitted that the property was purchased prior to the crime period. Thus, it could not have been considered to be proceeds of crime. The respondent failed to take aforesaid into consideration while passing the order. Elaborating the arguments, it was submitted that the appellant purchased a piece of land measuring 22504 Sq. Meter at Hollongi Village, Arunachal Pradesh for a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs. The amount was paid out of the consideration received by him on the sale of hotel at bomdila belonging to his father. It was for Rs. 6 Crores. Rs. 4.5 Crores was received in the bank account and remaining Rs.1.5 Crores was received in cash. The purchase of property was, thus, not connected with the proceeds of crime and otherwise it was prior to crime period and disclosed source. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order on the two grounds raised above.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other ground than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity given by this Tribunal to raise any factual or legal issues for challenge to the impugned order. However, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has shown his satisfaction to the issues raised and prayed for acceptance of the appeal on the aforesaid grounds.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent:

9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the appeal. Elaborate arguments were made in reference to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 152

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTYMUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CJ, GOPAL CHANDRA MISHRA, MemberShri Dorjee Phuntso Khrime – AppellantVersusThe Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna, Bihar – RespondentFPA-PMLA-1333/PTN/2024

The attachment of property equivalent in value to the proceeds of crime is valid irrespective of when the property was purchased, reinforcing broad definitions of 'proceeds of crime' and legal interpretations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CJ, GOPAL CHANDRA MISHRA, Member
Shri Dorjee Phuntso Khrime – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna, Bihar – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-1333/PTN/2024