Why ED instances ought to proceed regardless of acquittals in predicate offences
When courts acquit or discharge accused in predicate offences—typically collapsing the very basis of money-laundering prosecutions—the Enforcement Directorate (ED) mustn’t deal with such outcomes as the top of the highway, Further Solicitor Normal (ASG) S V Raju stated on Thursday, outlining a technique that features recent probes, authorized challenges, and intervention towards doable collusion.
The problems outlined by ASG Raju resonate with ongoing high-profile instances, together with the alleged irregularities within the Delhi excise coverage, the place Aam Aadmi Celebration nationwide convener Arvind Kejriwal is among the many accused. The case has seen parallel proceedings in predicate offences and underneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA), with authorized debates centring on how developments in a single have an effect on the opposite.
On February 27, 2026, a Delhi trial court docket discharged former CM Kejriwal, AAP chief Manish Sisodiaand 21 others within the Delhi excise coverage case, citing lack of proof. Nonetheless, the Delhi Excessive Court docket discovered these findings “prima facie inaccurate”, with a CBI problem scheduled for listening to on Might 4, 2026.
Talking at an ED Day lecture at Bharat Mandapam, ASG Raju framed the issue by a collection of eventualities: acquittal of all accused, discharge on the pre-trial stage, and even refusal by courts to take cognisance of a chargesheet. Every, he argued, requires a calibrated response relatively than an computerized closure of proceedings underneath the PMLA.
On the coronary heart of the problem lies a doctrinal stress. “We at all times say cash laundering is a standalone offence… Why does it fall when the predicate offence falls?” Raju requested, earlier than answering it himself: the legislation, because it stands, ties the offence to the existence of “proceeds of crime,” which in flip will depend on a scheduled—or predicate—offence. “It’s the umbilical wire,” he stated, explaining that and not using a scheduled offence, “there can’t be cash laundering”.
This dependency has led to courts quashing PMLA instances the place the underlying offence—akin to dishonest underneath Part 420 of the Indian Penal Code— is held to not be made out. “If the court docket says there isn’t a 420, then there isn’t a cash laundering,” he famous. Equally, an entire acquittal of all accused within the predicate offence sometimes ends in the collapse of the ED case.
Nonetheless, ASG Raju drew a distinction between acquittal on deserves and different types of judicial closure. If a court docket finds that the predicate offence exists however acquits the accused for lack of proof, “then there’s a query” whether or not the cash laundering case should essentially fail, he stated, suggesting room for authorized evolution.
Story continues beneath this advert
‘Push for additional probe’
On discharge—the place courts drop prices earlier than trial—ASG Raju acknowledged that the “prevalent view at the moment” is that PMLA proceedings don’t survive if all accused are discharged. But, he argued this could set off a deeper response: “Take a look at the discharge, discover the rationale, go to the company once more.” In such instances, the ED may push for additional investigation, particularly if the preliminary probe was poor.
He prolonged this logic to closure experiences filed by investigating businesses. Citing situations the place instances have been closed as a result of the accused couldn’t be traced, Raju stated such outcomes don’t essentially negate the existence of a predicate offence. “ED ought to make intervention and problem the company for collusion with accused,” he stated, including that the Directorate can provide materials for a “re-evaluation” and renewed investigation.
On courts refusing to take cognisance of predicate offences—typically resulting from lack of sanction—ASG Raju pressured that such orders should not determinations on the deserves of the offence. “Your offence has been whitewashed. You might be an aggrieved individual,” he stated, arguing that the ED can file revision petitions to problem such refusals.
He additionally flagged technical obstacles akin to limitation durations. In offences punishable by as much as two years, complaints have to be filed inside three years, failing which they change into time-barred. “Does it imply that the offence itself didn’t happen?” he requested, once more advocating recourse to revision proceedings.
Story continues beneath this advert
A extra advanced hurdle arises in instances of compounding or settlement. Illustrating with a builder accused of dishonest homebuyers, Raju stated that if the complainant withdraws the case after a settlement, the ensuing acquittal can undermine the PMLA case. “So it is a hurdle ED has to take care of,” he stated.
ASG Raju’s intervention indicators a push inside the enforcement institution to protect cash laundering prosecutions regardless of setbacks in underlying offences—by leveraging procedural cures, questioning investigative lapses, and, the place mandatory, reopening the path of the alleged “proceeds of crime”.
