Satish Motilal Bidri Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The Kerala High Court partly allowed the writ petition challenging provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner’s bank accounts had initially been frozen during an investigation concerning M/s. Masters Finserv, and during the pendency of the writ petition, the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached those accounts as well as an immovable property purchased by the petitioner in 2004. The alleged predicate offences related to the period from 27.01.2021 to 14.11.2022.
Examining Sections 5 and 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, the Court held that attachment of property of equivalent value having no connection with the predicate offence can extend to an unrelated property where the property derived from criminal activity has been taken or held outside India. The Court concurred with the approach in Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Satyam Computer Services Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, while declining to follow the differing interpretation in Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi v. Axis Bank and Others. It also relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others and Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement.
