This appeal highlights a recurring tension in high-stakes money laundering cases: whether the government can seize property from people who haven’t actually been charged with a crime. The dispute centres on a high-profile investigation into an alleged Rs. 25 per tonne illegal coal levy in Chhattisgarh. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claims that the proceeds from this scam weren’t just pocketed; they were laundered through the acquisition of real estate. The ED targeted the appellants Tushar, Pankaj, and Poonam Sahu because they are relatives of a public official allegedly tied to the racket. The department’s logic was simple: the money used to buy these properties was “dirty money” funnelled through family connections.

Main Issue: Whether provisional attachment under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA can be sustained against persons not named as accused, and whether such attachment amounts to a determination of guilt.

HC Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the attachment orders. It clarified that provisional attachment under the PMLA is not punitive in nature but a protective step to secure suspected proceeds of crime during investigation and trial. The Court held that the scheme of the Act permits attachment of property in the hands of any person, provided it is prima facie traceable to proceeds of crime.

The absence of the appellants’ names in the predicate offence was therefore not decisive. In fact, the court found that the ED had established a sufficient link between the alleged illicit funds and the properties in question. The appellants, on the other hand, failed to rebut the statutory presumption or substantiate their claim of legitimate sources.