Renu Constructions Private Limited Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
PMLA Appellate Tribunal Upholds ED Attachment of Delhi Commercial Properties in NRHM Scam; Pre-Offence Acquisition & ‘Cheque Date’ Defence Rejected
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi (Final Order dated 22.12.2025) dismissed appeals filed by Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Shivali Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and B.A. Properties Pvt. Ltd. against confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), arising from alleged misuse of NRHM funds in Uttar Pradesh (2010–11). The Tribunal affirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 23.09.2015 and the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 24.02.2016, sustaining attachment of commercial properties at 26, Pusa Road, New Delhi, held through the appellant companies.
The Tribunal held that acquisition of control over the companies—and thereby their high-value properties—was part of a layering and integration process using proceeds of crime, notwithstanding claims that share purchases were completed prior to the crime period or funded via cheques. It found M/s SRJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. to be a shell entity, controlled by the accused, through which tainted funds were routed. Reliance on the doctrine that cheque payments relate back to the date of delivery was rejected on facts, as the overall transaction showed deferred consideration, circular funding, and use of company funds to pay erstwhile shareholders.
The Tribunal clarified that properties may be attached as “proceeds of crime or value thereof” even if the underlying immovable assets were originally acquired earlier (e.g., in 2002), where later tainted funds are used to acquire ownership/control of the holding companies. The burden under Sections 8, 23 and 24 PMLA was held to be unmet by the appellants. Objections on locus standi were overruled after taking on record conversion of companies into LLPs, holding that proceedings continue against successor entities.
Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and distinguishing cases cited by appellants (including Pavana Dibbur), the Tribunal emphasized the wide sweep of “proceeds of crime”, permitting attachment in whosoever’s name held, and upheld ED’s action in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
These three appeals have been preferred under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No.525/2015 dated 24.02.2016, whereby Provisional Attachment Order No. 03/2015 dated 23.09.2015 passed in ECIRs No. 02/PMLA/LZO/2012, 03/PMLA/ LZO/2012 and 08/PMLA/LZO/2012 (all dated 14.04.2012) was confirmed by the said Authority.
