It is most significant to note that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Naresh Bansal & Ors vs Adjudicating Authority And Anr in W.P.(C) 11361/2015, CM APPL. 29836/2015 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:10341-DB that was reserved on 23.09.2025 and then finally pronounced on 24.11.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that though cricket betting is not a separate predicate offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2022, the property generated from such illegal activities can be attached by the Enforcement Directorate. To put it differently, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it absolutely clear that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can treat money and property derived from cricket betting using forgery, cheating or criminal conspiracy as proceeds of crime in a money laundering case. It is also worth paying attention that a Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued this most commendable order while dismissing petitions challenging the probe agency’s provisional attachment orders issued more than a decade ago in an alleged multi-crore international cricket betting scam.
What certainly cannot be left unnoticed is that the Delhi High Court noted that the ED’s action stemmed from an alleged international cricket betting and hawala racket run through the United Kingdom-based website Betfair.com. We must note that the ED pointed out that the operation was being managed from a farmhouse near Vadodara by Girish ‘Tommy’ Patel and his associates. So they came under radar of ED.
To recapitulate, the ED carried out searches in May 2025 at the farmhouse and at the home of key associates. In September 2015, the ED then provisionally attached movable and immovable assets worth around Rs 20 crore belonging to the accused, followed by a show-cause notice the next month under the PMLA. The accused later contested both actions before the Delhi High Court. But the Court very rightly upheld orders attaching the properties of people involved in an international betting operation.
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Anil Kshetrapal for a Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present Petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directorate’], the Respondent herein. In particular, the Petitioners assail the validity of issuance of the Provisional Attachment Order (‘PAO’) passed under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’] along with the Original Complaint filed under Section 5(5) of the PMLA and Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) issued under Section 8 of the PMLA thereof.”
While laying bare the origin of six petitions, the Division Bench puts forth in para 2 laying bare that, “At the threshold, it is noted that the present batch of six petitions arises out of a similar ECIR registered by the Directorate, thereby challenging the proceedings initiated under the provisions of PMLA on substantially similar factual matrix with the Petitioners advancing largely analogous submissions. Therefore, in order to maintain clarity and continuity in the adjudication of the present batch, this Court deems it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) 12261/2015 as the lead matter and refer to the facts delineated therein for the sake of consistency.”
While elaborating briefly on the background of the case, the Division Bench lays bare in para 3 disclosing that, “The dispute between the parties arises out of the actions initiated by the Directorate against the Petitioner in connection with large scale hawala transactions and illegal international cricket betting operations [hereinafter referred to as ‘Int’l Cricket Betting Racket’] conducted through a U.K. based website “Betfair.com”. The said operations were stated to have been carried out from a Farmhouse situated in village Sikandarpur, Nr. Ajwa Chowkdee, Vadodara by one Mr. Girish Parshottam Patel @ Tommy Patel and his associate, Mr. Kiran Jayantilal Mala.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 4 observing that, “In the month of May 2015, the Directorate, acting upon specific intelligence inputs, conducted a search operation under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as ‘FEMA’], at the aforesaid farmhouse and the residential premises of Mr. Kiran Jayantilal Mala and Mr. Gopal Pandya, associates to Mr. Girish Parshottam Patel @ Tommy Patel. These searches resulted in the recovery and seizure of incriminating documents, digital records and cash, allegedly linked to the operation of the hawala network facilitating international betting activities. Thereafter, the Directorate shared the seized documents with the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara, for further investigation, whereafter, it was revealed that certain SIM Cards had also been procured through forged signatures in bogus names as a part of Int’l Cricket Betting Racket.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 5 revealing that, “Consequently, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) bearing I-CR No.85/2015 dated 25.03.2015 under Sections 418,419,420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] was registered by the Vadodara Police, against four individuals, namely, Mr. Girish @ Tommy Parshottamdas Patel, Mr. Kirankumar Jentilal Mala, Mr. Dharmendra @ Dharmin Vishwanath Chauhan and Mr. Chirag Parikh, partners of an orally constituted partnership firm, “Maruti Ahmedabad” [hereinafter referred to as ‘MA’].”
As we see, the Division Bench then points out in para 6 that, “Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the Directorate, Ahmedabad, initiated simultaneous proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA on 26.03.2015 and registered Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’) No.ECIR/03/AMZO/2015, against the aforementioned individuals, in order to identify and locate proceeds of crime.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 7 that, “During the course of investigation, the Directorate on 22.05.2015 conducted a raid at the residential premises of the Petitioner and certain incriminating documents and valuables including cash to the tune of Rs.10 lacs were seized. Subsequently, a prosecution complaint bearing PMLA Case No.08/2015 was filed on 15.06.2015 before the Special Court, Ahmedabad, against the Petitioner. During the examination of the Petitioner under the provisions of the PMLA, it was revealed that the Petitioner acted as a key conduit in the Int’l Cricket Betting Racket by distributing Master and Client Login IDs for the betting platform “Betfair.com” within India. The Petitioner used to buy Super Master Login IDs from one Sukhminder Singh Sodhi in India, against a sum of approximately Rs.2.4 crores (USD 30,000) per ID, which he paid for by remitting funds abroad through unauthorised channels.”
Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 8 that, “Each Super Master Login ID, in turn, enabled the creation of multiple subordinate Master and Client Login IDs for use by individual bettors. The Petitioner distributed these Master Login IDs to various persons, including Kiran Jayantilal Mala, and earned a commission ranging between Rs.30/- and Rs.110/- per US Dollar on the winning or losing position generated by users operating under the Master Login IDs/(Client)Sub-Login IDs. It was further revealed that the login IDs procured and distributed by the Petitioner were issued without obtaining any documents mandated under the prescribed KYC norms, thereby facilitating anonymous, unregulated and unverifiable betting activities.”
Do further note, the Division Bench also then notes in para 9 that, “Prior to the filing of prosecution complaint, certain properties of the Petitioner were provisionally attached by way of a PAO No.08/2015 dated 12.06.2015. The said attachment came to be challenged by the Petitioner before the High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 15353-2015 captioned Mukesh Kumar s/o Late Jai Kishan Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, wherein the Court, vide its order dated 28.10.2015, directed the Adjudicating Authority [hereinafter referred to as ‘AA’] to grant an adjournment to the Petitioner in view of pendency of the proceedings thereof.”
Frankly speaking, the Division Bench points out in para 22 that, “With respect to the preliminary objection raised by the Directorate that, this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction, a reference is made to Article 226(2) of the COI, which empowers High Courts to exercise its writ jurisdiction in relation to matters in which a part of the cause of action arises within the respective territorial limits of the High Court. In the present case, while it is true that the Int’l Cricket Betting Racket was undertaken in the state of Gujarat, on the basis of which the PAO and its consequential proceedings were also initiated in Gujarat. However, it is of equal, if not greater, relevance that the acts of the Petitioner relating to the procurement and distribution of Super Master Login IDs were executed and carried out within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This fact, in particular, establishes that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, thereby justifying the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the COI. Even otherwise, at this stage, after the passage of long years ripening into a decade, it would neither be just nor expedient to relegate the matter to the Gujarat High Court, as it would lead to a further delay.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 36 that, “Therefore, having regard to the material relied upon in the PAO and the discussion therein, this Court is of the view, that the D/AO possessed sufficient and cogent material to form the requisite reason to believe and the formation of such belief under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was not mechanical or predicated on mere suspicion. Further, the PAO also indicates the existence of a clear nexus between the material collected and the inference drawn regarding the involvement of the Petitioner in process of money-laundering. In the aforesaid circumstances, and in view of the limited scope of judicial review at this stage, this Court finds no infirmity in the issuance of the PAO or the consequential SCN.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 41 that, “With respect to the application of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, it is pertinent to note that the scope of this provision is wide, encompassing not only immediate profits from a criminal act but also any advantage derived from the utilisation, transfer or subsequent exploitation of property obtained from a scheduled offence. It is also important to note that, even if a downstream activity, such as conducting betting, is not a scheduled offence, profits generated from such activity remain traceable to the original tainted property, especially when the said downstream activity is a final manifestation of a chain of criminality, intricately interwoven with multiple preceding criminal acts, any profit derived therefrom clearly constituting “proceeds of crime” within the contours of the PMLA.”
It would be instructive to also note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 42 noting that, “In the present case, the act of the Petitioner to procure and distribute these IDs, without any KYC verification or lawful documentation amounts to forgery, cheating, identity fraud and criminal conspiracy, all of which constitute as a scheduled offence. Moreover, the conduct of the Petitioner was not merely incidental; rather, it was a deliberate act undertaken in furtherance of a larger criminal conspiracy aimed at facilitating the running of an illegal betting racket. Therefore, any benefit indirectly derived by the usage of Super Master Login IDs, would constitute proceeds of crime.”
It is worth paying attention that the Division Bench points out in para 50 that, “Section 8(1) of the PMLA, enables the AA to issue a SCN to a concerned person “if” the AA, on receipt of a complaint under Section 5(5) of the PMLA or application made under Sections 17(4) or Section 18(10) of the PMLA, has a reason to believe that such person is either in possession of proceeds of crime or has committed an offence of money laundering. A plain reading of the said provision, reveals that jurisdiction of the AA to issue such notice, is only triggered by any one of three ingredients provided therein, the usage of the word ‘or’ between these triggers makes it abundantly clear that these three preconditions are in the alternative and not cumulative or contemporaneous in nature.”
In this context, the Division Bench then further adds in para 51 that, “In this regard, it also becomes important to note that issuance of SCN is merely a first step in furtherance of the quasi-judicial functions conferred upon the AA, which enables the affected party to be heard in accordance with the principle of audi alteram partem. The quasi-judicial functions exercised by AA must not be conflated with the attachment order passed under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, which is a precautionary and emergent measure undertaken by the Directorate to prevent dissipation or concealment of proceeds of crime. While the SCN initiates the adjudicatory process, attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA is provisional in nature and is aimed at safeguarding the assets pending determination, reflecting the deliberate legislative distinction between protective measures and the procedural onset of adjudication.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 52 that, “Accordingly, the absence of attachment under Section 5 of the PMLA cannot invalidate the SCN, since it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, absence of which will disable the AA to issue such notice in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Even otherwise, the property of the Petitioners in W.P. (C) 68/2015 and W.P. (C) 12274/2015 have, in fact, already been attached by the impugned PAO. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the second limb of the argument advanced by the Petitioner also fails.”
Resultantly, the Division Bench then holds in para 53 that, “Keeping in view the above position of law, as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no merit in the present Petitions.”
What’s more, the Division Bench then also directs and holds in para 54 that, “Accordingly, the present Petitions, along with the pending applications, are dismissed.”
Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by clarifying in para 55 holding that, “The foregoing discussion was only for the purpose of adjudication of lis raised in the present Petitions and the same shall not be treated as a final expression on the submissions of respective parties and shall also not affect the future adjudication emanating before any other forum in accordance with law.”
Sanjeev Sirohi