Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has issued a significant ruling, directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to specify details of predicate offences when issuing summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in enforcement actions.
Allahabad High Court’s Landmark Order on PMLA Summons: Clarity on Predicate Offences
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan underscored the necessity of providing specific details in summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA.
The case arose from an application filed by Ankur Aggarwal, seeking to quash a summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. The court observed:
“Through this petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the summons dated 15.01.2025, i.e., AD PMLA Summon No. PMLA/SUMMON/LKZO/2025/2911/5537, issued under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.”
Enforcement Directorate Summons Under PMLA: Court Emphasizes Legal Transparency
Addressing concerns over the lack of information in the summons, the court noted:
“At the very outset, Mr. Nadeem Murtaza submitted that the applicant was summoned despite the absence of any predicate offence or case. A perusal of the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, does not indicate any such offence or case.”
Distinguishing the present case from previous Supreme Court precedent, the court stated:
“The facts and circumstances of this case differ from those in Vilelie Khamo (supra), where the person concerned had been discharged in the predicate offence but was still summoned by the Enforcement Directorate. However, in the present case, there is no predicate offence at this stage.”
In a clear directive, the court ruled:
“I hereby dispose of this application at the admission stage, granting liberty to the competent authority/Directorate of Enforcement to issue a fresh summons to the applicant under Section 50 of the Act of 2002, specifying details of the predicate offence/case within two weeks if required, while disregarding the impugned summons dated 15.01.2025.”
The court also stressed the importance of providing adequate information in such summons:
“If the competent authority/Enforcement Directorate issues a summons under Section 50 of the Act requiring the presence of the individual concerned, at least some reference or details of the predicate offence/case must be included. This ensures that the person can appear before the authority fully informed and prepared.”
The court further directed that upon receiving a proper summons, the applicant must appear and cooperate with the investigation, with protection from immediate arrest upon appearance.
Mr. Nadeem Murtaza and Mr. Prashast Puri, Advocates, appeared for the applicant, while Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, Advocate, represented the Directorate of Enforcement.
Case Title: Ankur Aggarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
