Existence of recovered unaccounted assets and shared predicate offence information justifies arrest under Section 19 PMLA.

The Petitioner, a Deputy Director of Town Planning at Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC), was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on August 13, 2025, under Section 19 of the PMLA.

The arrest followed an investigation triggered by four FIRs (2019–2023) involving the illegal construction of 41 buildings by developers.

Search operations at the Petitioner’s residences yielded ₹8.23 crores in unaccounted cash and jewellery worth ₹23.28 crores.

Based on this, a predicate offence (FIR No. 330/2025) under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act was registered against him on August 1, 2025, and added to the ECIR via an addendum on August 4, 2025.

The Petitioner challenged the arrest as illegal, arguing a lack of nexus with the original FIRs and questioning the "reasons to believe".

1. Whether the arrest of the Petitioner by the ED was illegal for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

2. Whether the ED can arrest a person when they were not named as an accused in the initial predicate FIRs that formed the basis of the ECIR.

The Court primarily applied Section 19 of the PMLA, which mandates that the arresting officer must have "reasons to believe" the person is guilty of money laundering based on material in possession.

It relied on *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India*, establishing that money laundering is an independent offence and Section 2(1)(u) "proceeds of crime" includes any property derived indirectly from criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence.

The Court also applied *Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India*, which limits judicial review of the "subjective satisfaction" of the arresting officer to cases of manifest arbitrariness or gross statutory violation.

Section 13 of the PC Act was noted as a scheduled offence under PMLA.

The Court found that the ED followed due process by providing written grounds of arrest and recording "reasons to believe".

It rejected the Petitioner’s argument that he was not named in the initial four FIRs, noting that under the *Vijay Madanlal* doctrine, the PMLA offence is independent and focuses on the "process or activity" connected to proceeds of crime, regardless of when the scheduled offence occurred.

The recovery of ₹8.23 crores cash and ₹23.28 crores in jewellery, combined with Section 50 statements and incriminating WhatsApp chats suggesting a "bribe cartel," provided a sufficient factual foundation for the officer's subjective satisfaction.

The court distinguished the Petitioner’s case from *Anilkumar Khanderao Pawar*, noting that unlike in that case, tangible incriminating material was recovered here.

The court observed that the petition, filed four months post-arrest, appeared to be an attempt to bypass the stringent bail requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA.

It held that the arrest was legal as the ED possessed tangible material justifying "reasons to believe" the Petitioner was involved in laundering proceeds of crime.

The Court affirmed that the registration of a predicate offence (FIR 330/2025) prior to the arrest satisfied the statutory sequence.

The Petitioner’s prayer to quash the remand orders was denied, though he remains free to seek regular bail before the Special Court.