LawLoveLegal

Introduction The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional right to property and the statutory safeguards built into the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot freeze or attach property based merely on suspicion; instead, it must show valid and recorded “reasons to believe” supported by material evidence. The judgment provides important clarity on the limits of ED’s powers and the legal standards required for deprivation of property. Statutory Framework Under PMLA Section 17(1): Search and Seizure – Requirement of “Reasons to Believe” Section 17(1) of the PMLA empowers ED officers to enter and search premises and seize records or property. However, this power is conditional. The officer must possess “reasons to believe” that: A person has committed an offence under the Act, or The person is in possession of proceeds of crime. These reasons must be recorded in wr...

  An in-depth legal update on jurisdiction, asset transfer claims, and alleged procedural violations Sonia Gandhi Questions Court’s Jurisdiction and ED’s Legal Foundation Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, through her counsel Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi , raised strong objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Rouse Avenue Court to take cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the National Herald money laundering case . She argued that the entire matter stemmed from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy , who, according to Singhvi, is not an authorized complainant under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). No Transfer of Property or Money, Says Singhvi Singhvi firmly maintained that no transfer of money or property occurred from Associated Journals Limited (AJL) to Young Indian (YI) . He clarified that Young Indian merely took over AJL’s debt , and AJL’s real estate assets remain under AJL’...