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 allowed the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to attach (freeze/control) a property located in Pitam Pura, Delhi, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The property had been attached because the ED claimed it represented the “value of proceeds of crime.”

The key issue in the present case concerns a property at 255, Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi. 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. Since the property was bought long before any alleged crime and not with illegal money, it should not be attached under PMLA. 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.

Basically, the appellant claimed that the property in question was bought by a family member, not using illegal money; therefore, it cannot be attached. 

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) stated that the alleged illegal money (proceeds of crime) had been sent abroad and was not available. Under PMLA, if the actual illegal money or property cannot be found, the authorities can attach another property of equivalent value. Therefore, even if this house was not bought using illegal money, it could still be attached as an “equivalent value” under Section 5, read with Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.

When the high court analysed the facts of the case and arguments raised from both sides, it noted that the definition of “proceeds of crime” under PMLA includes property obtained from crime and the value of such property. In case illegal money/property cannot be found (like in the present case sent abroad), in that case the concerned authorities have the power to attach any property of equivalent value. The Court further clarified that PMLA does not provide any special protection to ancestral or inherited property.

Finding no legal error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the attachment.