Facts
The appeals arose from an Appellate Tribunal order dated 1 April 2026 continuing provisional attachment up to ₹25 crore: land held by Samit Realty in Pune, valued at ₹14.65 crore, and land held by Gauri Bhosale in Nagpur, valued at approximately ₹15.53 crore
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 1–2The Bhosales and Samit Realty appealed against the continuation of attachment; the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) cross-appealed against the Tribunal’s decision releasing other attached properties
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The ED’s case concerned alleged proceeds of crime connected to Yes Bank’s investments and lending to DHFL, and alleged payments to entities associated with Avinash Bhosale
Source reference: pp. 4, 7–9, paras. 5, 11–18Issues
Whether the alleged Yes Bank–DHFL transactions and subsequent payments to entities associated with Avinash Bhosale could constitute proceeds of crime or money-laundering under the PMLA
Source reference: pp. 5–10, paras. 8–21Whether the provisional attachment of the Pune and Nagpur properties could be continued on the material before the Tribunal
Source reference: pp. 3, 10–11, paras. 2, 22–24Law Applied
The Court applied Section 2(u) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), under which “proceeds of crime” includes property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence; Sections 2(1)(y) and 3, which respectively define “scheduled offence” and the offence of money-laundering
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 6–9The Court reasoned that property must be connected to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence to qualify as proceeds of crime, and that a lawful banking or commercial transaction cannot, without an established criminal nexus, be treated as proceeds of crime
Source reference: pp. 6, 8–10, paras. 9–10, 17–20The appeal concerned an order of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA
Source reference: p. 3, para. 1Reasoning
The Court found no demonstrated connection between the payments to Bhosale-associated entities and the alleged Yes Bank disbursements. It noted that repayments under the debenture subscription agreements arose from agreements made in 2014, before the alleged 2018 disbursements, and found no basis for treating ₹67.85 crore as proceeds of crime
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 12–14It similarly held that consultancy payments made before the 12 April 2018 loan disbursement could not be linked to those proceeds, and that a later balance payment under the 2016 dairy-business sale agreement did not, by itself, establish such a link
Source reference: pp. 8–9, paras. 15–18The Court further considered the Yes Bank–DHFL transactions to be official banking transactions and found no cogent material supporting the ED’s allegation that a subsequent ₹600 crore loan was a kickback
Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 19–21In the absence of a sufficient nexus between the transactions and proceeds of crime, it found no basis to continue the attachment
Source reference: pp. 10–11, paras. 22–24Holding
The Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 2026 in terms of prayer clause (a) and dismissed the ED’s Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2026
It concluded that the transactions in issue could not, on the material presented, be treated as proceeds of crime and that there was no basis to continue attachment of the two properties
Source reference: p. 11, paras. 23–24Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Original Court PDF
Avinash Bhosale And OrsvsDirectorate Of Enforcement
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
