The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
Introduction
Can an improperly secured government allocation, obtained through deception, become the foundation for a money laundering charge years later? This question strikes at the heart of how financial crime legislation treats the “fruits of a poisonous tree.”
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court division bench has decisively ruled in Directorate Of Enforcement Versus M/S. Hi-Tech Mercantile India Pvt Ltd & Ors. & Ors1. that a coal block allocation secured via misrepresentation or fraud, which subsequently generated financial benefits, squarely constitutes an offence of money laundering under the PMLA2.
This ruling directly overturned a 2022 decision by a single judge that had previously held the coal allocation itself could not be considered “proceeds of crime” per se. The central issue before the division bench was the ED’s3 authority to attach assets and proceed against PIL4 based on gains derived from a coal block allocation made in 2003, despite earlier legal complications.
This article will delve into the crucial legal principles regarding what constitutes “property,” when “proceeds of crime”are generated, and how the allocation document itself became the crucial link to satisfying the stringent requirements of the PMLA offence.
What truly constitutes “property” in the labyrinthine world of modern finance, and at what precise moment do the gains from a fraudulent acquisition become the indelible mark of “proceeds of crime”? These are not mere academic questions; they are the fault lines upon which the battle against economic crime is won or lost, particularly under the stringent framework of the PMLA.
How does the law expand its net to catch the intangible? The judiciary has consistently grappled with defining the boundaries of ‘property’ under Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA. To view it through a narrow, traditional lens—only as physical assets—is to render the law obsolete in a commercial era dominated by intangible rights. As established in legal dictionaries like Black’s Law Dictionary and aligned with constitutional jurisprudence under Article 300A, property encompasses everything that has an exchangeable value or that makes up an estate, extending to every species of valuable right and interest.
The PMLA itself adopts an inclusive and expansive statutory definition, covering any asset evidenced by a deed or instrument evidencing title or interest. The court found the coal block allocation letter, even one subsequently cancelled by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary5, was precisely such an instrument, evidencing a right to obtain a mining lease and extract coal, thus becoming the ‘property’ that formed the very foundation for the crime.
If the allocation letter itself is ‘property’ under Section 2(1)(v), when do the resulting earnings transform into ‘proceeds of crime’ under Section 2(1)(u)? This section is clear: it covers any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, including the “value of such property.” The chain of criminality is established because the initial, fraudulent instrument—the coal block allocation—conferred valuable rights (despite earlier legal complications surrounding the allocation and its subsequent cancellation). The “subsequent coal extraction, commercial exploitation, and profit generation by PIL are the direct economic manifestations of that tainted right, squarely fitting the definition of proceeds under Section 2(1)(u)”.
Once proceeds are generated, does the criminality end with the predicate offence? No, because the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is triggered. This section criminalizes any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, and projection as untainted property. The legislative intent, as confirmed in PMLA’s Objects and Reasons and guided by FATF recommendations, is to criminalize the laundering itself and ensure the confiscation of the illegal gains.
Crucially, the PMLA offence is a continuing activity, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement6 and reiterated in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary7. The offence persists as long as the perpetrator enjoys, possesses, or uses the illicit funds. This continuous nature is vital to the present case, where the gains derived from the coal block allocation made in 2003 continued to be possessed and used by PIL, thereby sustaining the liability under PMLA despite the artificial cut-off date of the initial predicate act.
Can a person simply claim financial losses to defeat a money laundering charge?
The court emphatically rejected this, noting that an argument by PIL to apply a “net benefit theory”—where losses cancel out gains—is wholly misplaced. The statute focuses on the derivation or use of property obtained through criminal activity and not on the eventual profit or loss incurred by a party, rejecting the fallacious premise that “a negative plus a negative result in positive.”
Finally, is the Enforcement Directorate (ED) justified in attaching the value of coal extracted, which extends beyond the scope of the original chargesheet filed by the predicate agency? Yes, because Section 5(1) of the PMLA permits provisional attachment when the authorized officer has a ‘reason to believe’ proceeds are in possession. Moreover, Section 2(1)(u) expressly permits the attachment of the “value of any such property.”
The division bench found that the ED’s quantification of Rs. 951.77 crores corresponding to the coal excavated was a reflection of the financial gain. The court made clear that the ED’s scope is not confined to the timeframe or scope set out by the predicate agency’s report, as the money laundering offence is a stand-alone statute and a continuing offence, allowing the Directorate to extend its actions beyond the pre-allocation phase of September 4, 2003. This robust interpretation ensures that criminals cannot insulate their illicit gains by claiming procedural setbacks in the underlying criminal case or by burying tainted assets in complex financial maneuvers.
Conclusion
The division bench’s ruling, overturning the single judge’s verdict, is more than a legal technicality; it’s a profound affirmation of the PMLA’s deterrent power against white-collar crime. By establishing that the illegally obtained allocation letter is ‘property’ under Section 2(1)(v) and that the financial gains from its subsequent use—the coal extraction and sale—are ‘proceeds of crime’ under Section 2(1)(u), the court has solidified the statutory connection between the predicate offence and the money laundering charge.
This ruling effectively eliminates the argument that the proceeds must be strictly monetary at the point of the initial crime, recognizing that valuable, intangible rights can be the “first step in a chain of subsequent events” leading to illegal wealth. The judgment ensures that the enforcement authority’s jurisdiction is not artificially constrained by the scope of the CBI’s initial charge sheet or limited to pre-allocation activity, reinforcing the legislative intent that money laundering is a continuing offence under Section 3, persisting as long as the ill-gotten wealth is possessed, used, or projected as untainted.
Looking ahead, this judgment sets a powerful precedent, particularly in sectors dealing with government allocations, licenses, and concessions, such as mining, spectrum, and infrastructure development. The key future question this raises is: How will the “value” of intangible, fraudulently secured rights be quantified in future PMLA proceedings?Furthermore, will this expansive reading of ‘property’ be tested against other complex financial instruments, such as corporate shareholdings, derivatives, or even digital assets obtained through illegal means?
This decision signals a clear message: the ED’s power to trace, attach, and prosecute will not be curtailed by attempts to obscure the financial trail through layers of legitimate-looking commercial activity. It represents a significant judicial stride in ensuring that the proceeds of crime, regardless of when they materialize or their form, are stripped from those who generated them, upholding the foundational objective of the PMLA.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Anuja Pandit
