TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay FPA-PMLA-1094/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-3514/MUM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-1065/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-3417/MUM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-1090/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-5718/MUM/2025 FPA-PMLA-94/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-165/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3698/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-113/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-163/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-162/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3697/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-112/MUM/2026 MP-PMLA-170/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3694/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-110/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-168/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3696/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-111/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-164/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3695/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-109/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-169/MUM/2026 Stay MP-PMLA-171/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3693/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-108/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-166/MUM/2026 Stay MP-PMLA-167/MUM/2026 CoD MP-PMLA-3692/MUM/2025 Resto. IN FPA-PMLA-107/MUM/2026, MP-PMLA-3417/MUM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-1064/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-5790/MUM/2025 COD MP-PMLA-3683/MUM/2025 Misc. FPA-PMLA-2268/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-3960/MUM/2025 Exemp. MP-PMLA-1858/MUM/2025 STAY FPA-PMLA-1683/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-1860/MUM/2025 STAY FPA-PMLA-1684/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-1861/MUM/2025 STAY FPA-PMLA-1797/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA-1831/MUM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-778/MUM/2025, FPA-PMLA-712/MUM/2025, MP-PMLA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Sarang, Adv. Mr. Rishul Seth, Adv. And Mr. Faraz, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Abhimanyu Kaul, Adv. FINAL ORDER The batch of appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002') have been filed to challenge four different orders passed by the respondents out of which two orders were caused on 22.11.2024 and 26.12.2024 to provisionally attach the properties. Those orders have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide the orders dated 08.05.2025 and 26.05.2025. The two other appeals are arising out of the seizure/freezing of the articles and movable properties. The Adjudicating Authority allowed retention of the seized articles and freezing of bank and Demat accounts vide the orders dated 12.03.2025 and 11.04.2025 in reference to OA No.1359/2024 and OA No.1384/2024. 2. All the appeals have been taken together for the reason that they are arising out of the same ECIR and even based on the common facts though two appeals involve provisional attachment of the properties while other two are out of the seizure of articles and freezing of the movable properties. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is a case where an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicating Authority and aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appeals were preferred by the appellants. Arguments of counsel for the appellants 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a batch of 53 appeals have been preferred under the Act of 2002, which are arising out of the common set of proceedings initiated by the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement (ED). 6. The learned counsel for the appellants made a reference of each appellant with the statement of allegations against them, the description of which is as under: (I) Mr. Krish Shah is alleged to be the owner and controller of the Fairplay Betting Website/App. The allegation against him is that he is the principal person behind the operation of the Fairplay betting platform. The following other appellants fall under this category: Tanvi Krish Shah - Wife Jayshree L. Shah - Mother Laxmichand V. Shah - Father Vasanji Shah - Grand father Laxmichand Vasanji Shah HUF - Father's HUF M/s Swastik Enterprises - a partnership firm with Mr. Laxmichand Shah and Mrs. Sarla D. Gala as its partners M/s Shah Farms LLP - a Limited Liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (III) Mr. Siddhant Shankaran Iyer and his mother, Mrs. Shobha Shankaran Iyer Mr. Siddhant Iyer is alleged to have been involved in the administrative and operational activities of the Fairplay Betting Website/App. No allegation has been made that the mother of Mr. Siddhant Iyer participated in or had any role in the Fairplay Betting Website/App. Her bank accounts and assets have been attached solely on the allegation that she was in possession of the alleged proceeds of crime. (IV) Mr. Megh Shah and his family members Mr. Megh Shah is alleged to have been responsible for the expansion of the Fairplay Betting Website/App. The remaining Appellants connected with Mr. Megh Shah are: Deepa Pradeep Shah - Mother Khushbu Megh Shah - Wife Pradeep Lakhamsi Shah - Father Pradeep Lakhamsi Shah HUF - Father's HUF. While allegations have been levelled against Mr. Megh Shah regarding his involvement with the Fairplay platform, no independent allegation has been made against his family members. Their properties have nevertheless been attached on the premise that they are in possession of, or benefici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that the proceedings in regard to the FIR No.04/2023 were quashed by the Bombay High Court, thus there was no reason for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the provisional attachment of the properties and the order for retention of the seized articles and even continuance of the freezing order. The Adjudicating Authority had taken into consideration the subsequent FIRs though were not part of the Provisional Attachment Orders or seizure and freezing so as the OA/OC in reference to which the impugned orders have been passed. Thus, the entire action of the respondents could not have been endorsed by the Adjudicating Authority based on the facts which are not taken into consideration while causing provisional attachment of the properties or seizure/freezing of the articles/movable properties. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that apart from the facts given above, the Adjudicating Authority even ignored the source for acquisition of the properties under provisional attachment or under freezing, such as the bank and Demat accounts, apart from seizure of the bank locker, etc. The Adjudicating Authority ought to have denied confirmation of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds urged by the appellants. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants did not raise any other ground than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity to raise any other legal or factual issue. The counsel for the appellants recorded his satisfaction to the issues raised by him for the consideration of the Tribunal. Arguments of counsel for the respondents: 15. The batch of appeals were vehemently contested by the counsel for the respondents on all the grounds raised by the appellants. Elaborate arguments were made to deal with each and every issue and would be referred while recording finding to the issues raised by the appellants. It is to avoid repetition of facts and for the sake of brevity. Finding of the Tribunal: 16. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the record carefully. 17. The brief facts pertaining to the case have been given in the opening para of this order which refers to the registration of FIR No.04/2023 against the accused M/s Fairplay Sport LLC and M/s Play Ventures N.V. for unauthorizedly streaming and broadcasting of the sport contents. The FIR was disclosing a predicate offence and accordingly respondents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed by the Bombay High Court to quash the proceedings under the FIR No.04/2023 and in the light of the fact aforesaid, the prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned orders. 20. The appellants further made submission that subsequent to FIR No.04/2023, 8 to 9 FIRs were registered. However, it was for altogether different allegations and otherwise, the Provisional Attachment Order was not caused in reference to those FIRs, rather there is no reference of the subsequent FIRs in the Provisional Attachment Order and accordingly subsequent FIRs and the allegations made therein do not find place even in the "Reasons to Believe" recorded by the respondents to sustain provisional attachment of the properties and even the seizure or freezing of the bank and Demat accounts, etc. The reference of the subsequent FIRs does not exist even in the Original Application filed under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 pursuant to the search and seizure under Section 17(1) and even in the original complaint to seek confirmation of the provisional attachment of the properties. The impugned Provisional Attachment Order was not caused in reference to the allegations made in the subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which, according to the respondents, was involving more than Rs.100 crores. It was alleged to have been obtained by the appellants by streaming and broadcasting of IPL. The counsel for the respondents, however, could not dispute that FIR No.04/2023 does not survive after an order passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.821-822/2025 on 12.02.2025. In the light of the aforesaid, the first issue raised by the appellants is to be determined. To address the issue, I have gone through the Provisional Attachment Order so as the Original Complaint sent to the Adjudicating Authority to seek confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order. It is also the Original Application under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 sent by the respondents to the Adjudicating Authority to seek retention of seized articles and continuance of freezing of the bank and Demat accounts, apart from the bank locker. In those orders, I find reference only of FIR No.04/2023 and not of the subsequent FIRs to find out the proceeds of crime. The reference of subsequent FIRs and the allegations made therein does not find place even in the "Reasons to Believe" recorded by the respondents. Thus, subsequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that after the order of the Bombay High Court causing interference in FIR No.04/2023, no predicate offence remains. The argument aforesaid cannot be accepted in the light of the subsequent FIRs disclosing the predicate offence and addendum issued by the respondents. It is, however, clarified that the subsequent FIRs and addendum to the ECIR could not have been taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority when it was not referred either in the Original Application filed under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 or the Original Complaint to seek confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order. The second issue raised by the appellants is decided accordingly. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the betting is not a predicate offence and otherwise it does not make out an offence under Section 420 IPC. Thus, the subsequent FIRs containing the allegations against the appellants for their involvement in betting and even in gambling could not have been taken to indicate predicate offence. I find argument aforesaid to be unnecessary for the reason that once subsequent FIRs have not taken into consideration while causing of the Provisional Attachment ....