Legal Provisions Involved: Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Judgement by: Delhi High Court.

Judge/Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia.

Facts

The case relates to an alleged cyber fraud and money-laundering racket involving over ₹100 crore. Fake investment and part-time job schemes were used to cheat victims. According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the money was moved through thousands of Indian bank accounts, routed through mule accounts, sent to a UAE-based payment platform (PYYPL), and then converted into cryptocurrency or withdrawn abroad. 

The accused Chartered Accountants were said to be part of a group controlling several entities and accounts used in these transactions. ED also alleged destruction of electronic evidence, assault on officers, bribery attempts, and continuing complaints.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues Raised

Whether earlier non-arrest gives a right to anticipatory bail?

Whether normal bail rules apply; and whether custodial interrogation was necessary?

Arguments of the case

The defence argued arrest was never earlier required and the case involved crypto transactions. The ED argued circumstances had changed and deeper investigation was needed.

Judgement

Anticipatory bail was refused. The Court held that earlier non-arrest does not prevent custodial interrogation now, and the Section 45 twin conditions were not satisfied.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.