LawLoveLegal

Court Emphasizes Procedural Safeguards Under PMLA The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must strictly follow the procedures laid down in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when seeking to retain seized or frozen property. The judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards are crucial to protect individuals’ rights from arbitrary retention of property. A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vadiyanathan Shankar delivered the verdict on Friday, making it clear that ED cannot directly seek the adjudicating authority’s approval for retention without first issuing a formal order. Requirement of a Formal Order Before Retention According to the court, before the ED approaches the adjudicating authority, an authorised officer must pass a formal order explaining why retention for up to 180 days is necessary. Without this essential step, the adjudicating authority has no legal basis to determine whether the seized property is ...

Supreme Court Decision: V. Senthil Balaji vs  The Directorate of Enforcement Background and Case Summary The case under discussion is Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024 , which arose from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3986 of 2024 . V. Senthil Balaji, a former Transport Minister in Tamil Nadu (2011-2016), was accused of involvement in a significant job racketeering scheme. The charges against him primarily relate to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 . Allegations The allegations stem from several FIRs filed between 2015 and 2018, which accuse Balaji of promising jobs in the Transport Department in exchange for money. It was claimed that Balaji, along with his associates, collected large sums of money for posts like drivers, conductors, junior tradesmen, and engineers. Over 2,000 individuals were named as accused , and multiple chargesheets  were filed under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) , the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , and the PMLA. The ...