The Enforcement Directorate’s powers of summons, attachment and arrest each rest on statutory pre-conditions. AMLEGALS defends individuals and companies across the full PMLA lifecycle — from the first summons to trial before the Special Court.
Money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not a free-standing wrong — it depends on a scheduled offence and on proceeds of crime generated from it. That dependence is the first line of defence: the strength of the predicate offence, the identification of the proceeds and their valuation all bear directly on whether the money-laundering case can stand. A defence that engages only with the Section 3 allegation, and not with its foundations, fights on the Directorate’s chosen ground.
The second line is procedural but decisive. Summons under Section 50, attachment under Section 5, search under Sections 17 and 18 and arrest under Section 19 each carry statutory pre-conditions and recorded satisfactions. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India (2022) the Supreme Court upheld the scheme of the Act while affirming the safeguards that attend these powers. AMLEGALS builds the defence around both lines — the dependence of the offence and the lawful exercise of each power — across investigation, attachment, bail and trial.
Advising individuals and companies before and on receipt of a Section 50 summons on rights, preparation and representation.
Resisting provisional attachment under Section 5 and contesting confirmation before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8.
Testing the Section 19 grounds of arrest, remand and the safeguards recognised in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
Building a Section 45 bail application around the twin conditions and the statutory relaxations.
Attacking the foundational scheduled offence and the identification and valuation of proceeds of crime.
Defending the prosecution complaint and trial of the Section 3 offence before the Special Court.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 is attracted only where there is a predicate or scheduled offence listed in the Schedule to the Act and proceeds of crime generated from it. The Enforcement Directorate records an Enforcement Case Information Report and investigates whether any person has dealt with those proceeds — their concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection as untainted property — which constitutes the offence of money laundering under Section 3, punishable under Section 4.
In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India (2022) the Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Case Information Report is an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate and is not equated with a first information report, so supply of the ECIR to the accused is not mandatory. It is, however, sufficient that the grounds of arrest are disclosed. The defence strategy must therefore be built from the grounds, the summons and the material actually relied upon.
The Directorate can summon persons and record statements under Section 50, conduct search and seizure under Sections 17 and 18, provisionally attach proceeds of crime under Section 5, and arrest under Section 19 where there is material in possession and reason to believe recorded in writing. Each power has statutory pre-conditions and safeguards, and the lawful exercise of these pre-conditions is frequently the decisive battleground of a PMLA defence.
Section 45 imposes twin conditions: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. These conditions, struck down in Nikesh Tarachand Shah (2017) and reintroduced by amendment, were upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022). Bail is therefore demanding but not impossible, and the Act itself relaxes the conditions for the sick, the infirm, women and persons under sixteen.
The offence of money laundering is dependent on a scheduled offence. The Supreme Court has recognised that if a person is discharged or acquitted of the predicate offence, or the proceeding is quashed, there can be no offence of money laundering against that person in respect of those proceeds. Tracking and challenging the status of the predicate offence is accordingly central to the defence.
No. No engagement is treated as accepted until conflicts, scope and terms are confirmed in writing.
Share the stage of the matter — summons, attachment, arrest or complaint — for a confidential preliminary assessment.