Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for State of Madhya Pradesh VS Balram Mihani...

Checking relevance for Vijay Madanlal Choudhary VS Union of India...

2022 7 Supreme 193 : Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, proceeds of crime derived from any scheduled offence, including extortion, can be attached through the mechanism provided under Section 5 (provisional attachment order) and Section 8 (attachment, adjudication, and confiscation). The offence of money laundering is an independent offence involving processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, regardless of whether the underlying criminal activity (such as extortion) has been formally prosecuted. The authorised officer may issue a provisional attachment order only upon satisfaction that the person possesses proceeds of crime and there is a likelihood of concealment. The Adjudicating Authority, upon confirmation of such order, may thereafter pass a formal order of confiscation. The Act''''s definition of ''''proceeds of crime'''' is broad enough to include property derived directly or indirectly from such proceeds, including income, profits, and benefits. Section 65 of the PMLA, which refers to rules under the CrPC, also allows for confiscation of instrumentalities and intended instrumentalities, which could include property obtained through extortion. Thus, the proceeds of crime obtained through extortion are subject to attachment under the PMLA.Checking relevance for Pavana Dibbur VS Directorate of Enforcement...

Checking relevance for NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...

2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2386 : Under Section 105C(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as interpreted in the judgment, a court in India may make an order of attachment or forfeiture of any property that it has reasonable grounds to believe was derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence, including extortion. This provision applies to proceeds of crime obtained through extortion, and the court''''s power to attach such property is not limited to movable property, as Chapter VIIA (introduced by Act 40 of 1993) explicitly defines ''''property'''' to include both movable and immovable property, as well as intangible and incorporeal assets, and deeds or instruments evidencing title to such property.Checking relevance for NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH VS UNION OF INDIA...

Checking relevance for Headstar Global Private Limited vs State of Kerala...

2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1714 : Under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the proceeds of crime—defined as any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity, including extortion—can be attached by a Magistrate upon a police officer''''s application. The Magistrate may issue an order of attachment after considering the explanation to a show-cause notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the Magistrate finds the property to be proceeds of crime, they may direct the District Magistrate to rateably distribute such proceeds to persons affected by the crime. The procedure requires adherence to due process, including notice and hearing, unless an interim ex parte order is justified to prevent defeat of the attachment''''s purpose.Checking relevance for Headstar Global Pvt. Limited, Represented By Its Director/ Authorized Signatory, Sreekumar C.S., S/o. Sreedharan Nai vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi...

2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2525 : Under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a police officer may apply to the Court or Magistrate for attachment of property if they have reason to believe that the property is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity. This includes property obtained through extortion, as extortion constitutes a criminal offence. The attachment requires the approval of the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police and must be authorized by a Magistrate. The court emphasized that such attachment must be linked to criminal activity and cannot be done without proper procedure or reasonable suspicion.Checking relevance for Kumar Pappu Singh, S/o. Kapil Deo Singh VS Union of India, Ministry of Finance, rep. by its Secretary, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi...

Checking relevance for Nitin Jain Liquidator PSL Limited VS Enforcement Directorate...

Checking relevance for Sikandar Singh VS Directorate of Enforcement...

Checking relevance for Princl. Chief Conservator of Forest & Anr. VS J. K. Johnson...

Checking relevance for Isaac Isanga Musumba VS State of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Bharat Chaganlal Raghani...

Checking relevance for State Of W. B. VS Sujit Kumar Rana...

Checking relevance for Balkrishan Gupta VS Swadeshi Polytex LTD. ...

Checking relevance for Biswanath Bhattacharya VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for Harshad Shantilal Mehta VS Custodian...

Checking relevance for Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Delhi VS Axis Bank...

Checking relevance for B. Rama Raju VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for P. Trivikrama Prasad VS Enforcement Directorate, Rep. by its Joint Director...

Checking relevance for Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Delhi VS Axis Bank...

• Proceeds of Crime - Attachment under PMLA is only permissible on proceeds of crime derived from scheduled offences such as extortion. The definition of proceeds of crime has been clarified by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that only tainted assets generated through unlawful activities like extortion can be attached. The courts have consistently held that assets obtained by layering ill-gotten cash, enjoyed by individuals connected or unconnected to the offence, fall within this scope ["2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26341"].

• Scope of Attachment - The attachment process is restricted to the proceeds of crime, and there is a consensus that only these tainted assets, generated from crimes like extortion, can be attached. The courts have underscored that the definition of proceeds of crime must be applied strictly, and any assets acquired or enjoyed through the use of such proceeds are liable for attachment Multiple references: Shri Rajnikant Tiwari vs The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Raipur - Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property_ATFP_FPA_PMLA_6338_RP_2023, ["Shri Rajnikant Tiwari vs The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Raipur - Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property"], ["etc."].

• Legal Precedent and Clarification - The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that proceeds of crime include assets obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activities such as extortion, and assets layered or enjoyed by beneficiaries of such proceeds are also attachable. The courts have reiterated that the definition of proceeds of crime is to be interpreted in line with the Court’s jurisprudence, ensuring that tainted assets can be attached to confiscate the proceeds of unlawful activities ["2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26341"].

Analysis and Conclusion

Attachment of proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is specifically limited to assets derived from scheduled offences like extortion. The courts have emphasized that only assets classified as proceeds of crime—those generated from or layered with tainted cash—are eligible for attachment. The Supreme Court’s consistent rulings reinforce that assets obtained through extortion or linked to criminal syndicates can be attached, provided they fall within the clarified legal definition of proceeds of crime.