2026 (5) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n O.A.No.364 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent/Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Mr.M.G.Pranava Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's company is only offering a platform for merchants, which is strictly a payment intermediary, having no control over the commercial transactions between the merchants and customers and therefore, the proceedings undertaken by the 1st respondent are not maintainable. He further submitted that since the petitioner's company is no way involved with any unlawful transactions or illegalities, the retention of properties in the form of gold bullions, digital devices, etc., particularly when the petitioner is only a payment inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amounts of money running to several crores were misappropriated, a case in Crime No.277 of 2024 came to be registered on 17.08.2024 against one Raghav Ruia and others for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Based on the predicate offence, which are all scheduled offences under the Act, the 2nd respondent registered a case in ECIR/HIU-II/18/2025 dated 28.07.2025. 6. A search was conducted under Section 17 of the Act on 07.11.2025 and 08.11.2025. During the search, several incriminating materials were found in the form of gold bullions, digital devices and documents, which were believed to be the proceeds of crime. 7. On seizure of the materials, the 2nd respondent had filed an application before the 1st respondent/Adjudicating....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, based on the predicate offence, the ECIR under the Act came to be registered by the 2nd respondent. Further, on the reasons to believe recorded, the search and seizure were carried out, which has not been disputed. The 2nd respondent had filed application as contemplated under Section 17(4) of the Act for retention of the property along with the reasons to believe that have been recorded, under Section 17(1) of the Act to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority, prima facie having been satisfied with the materials available on record that crores of rupees have been siphoned off and the proceeds of crime are involved, has recor....