No Special Immunity to Inherited Assets Under PMLA: High Court Clarifies
The Delhi High Court upheld the attachment of the appellant’s Delhi property under the PMLA, ruling that “proceeds of crime” includes equivalent value assets. The court dismissed the appeal by citing several earlier judgements based on similar issues and affirmed the Tribunal’s decision.
Anur Suri had filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), challenging an order dated November 27, 2025, passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order had sustained the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order dated July 28, 2017, passed by the Directorate of Enforcement.
The key issue in the present case concerns a property at 255, Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had noted that Suri had acquired proceeds of crime in the form of foreign exchange, which had been sent abroad and was no longer traceable. Therefore, the department attached the Delhi property as an “equivalent value” under Section 5, read with Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.
The appellant raised a key argument that the property in question was not bought by him but instead was purchased by his father in 1991 out of his own income in the joint names of him and his father. He claimed he had not contributed any money toward its purchase and that it was essentially ancestral property. He stated that such property could not be treated as “proceeds of crime” or attached as its “equivalent value” under the PMLA. To support the aforesaid claim, the appellant also cited earlier judgements in the cases of Pavana Dibbur and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
When the high court analysed the arguments from both sides, it held that the definition of “proceeds of crime” under the law is broad and includes not only directly tainted property but also property equivalent in value if the original assets cannot be found. The Court clarified that ancestral or inherited property is not automatically protected from attachment under the PMLA.
Interpreting the word “value thereof”, an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) stated that “the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ is wide enough to not only refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence but also to the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with.”
Finding no legal error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the attachment.
Citation: Arun Suri Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court); MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 13/2026; 16/02/2026
