Delhi High Court on PMLA Seizures: Lawful Search Does Not Authorise Indefinite Retention of Property and Digital Records

Case Details

• Court: High Court of Delhi
• Key Decisions: Anirudh Pratap Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (and connected petitions; affirmed by subsequent orders including Ravi Aggarwal, Utkarshh Pahwa, and Bhuraji Mulaji Prajapati v. Deputy Director, ED)
• Statutory Provisions: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) §§ 2(1)(v), 2(1)(w), 8(3), 17, 17(4), 20, and 21

---

Factual Background

During search and seizure operations conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) seized numerous items, including electronic storage devices, mobile phones, laptops, and financial records. While Section 17(4) requires the investigating agency to approach the Adjudicating Authority within thirty days for retention of seized property or for continuing a freeze, devices and movable properties frequently remained in ED custody for extended periods—often spanning months or years—without explicit, standalone orders authorising ongoing retention under Section 20.

Aggrieved parties challenged this continuous retention, contending that once forensic clone copies of digital records are extracted, continued physical deprivation of movable property constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. The ED resisted releasing the original items, claiming that subsequent confirmation of attachment by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) cured procedural lapses and justified keeping the physical items until the conclusion of proceedings.

---

Legal Issues

1. Whether an initial lawful search and seizure under Section 17 of the PMLA automatically confers jurisdiction on the ED to hold seized movable properties and digital devices indefinitely.
2. Whether an order of confirmation of attachment under Section 8(3) dispenses with or cures the absence of an independent, reasoned order for retention under Section 20.
3. Whether the agency must return original electronic hardware under a "clone and return" framework when the device's value is not proceeds of crime and the hardware itself does not form part of the prosecution complaint.

---

Holding and Ratio

The Delhi High Court held that seizure and retention are distinct statutory mechanisms that demand independent legal justification:

• Mandatory Nature of Section 20 Safeguards: A valid seizure under Section 17 does not automatically sanction protracted custody. Under Section 20(1), the authorised officer must independently record objective "reasons to believe" that the property is required for adjudication. This requirement operates as a vital statutory safeguard against executive overreach.
• Defects Incurable by Section 8(3): A subsequent confirmation of attachment under Section 8(3) of the PMLA cannot retrospectively cure or substitute the complete absence of a valid, reasoned retention order mandated by Section 20.
• Status of Digital Devices (Property vs. Records): The court recognised that electronic hardware falls under "property" under Section 2(1)(v), while the data housed within constitutes "records" under Section 2(1)(w). Where devices are seized purely for evidential information rather than representing the proceeds of crime, indefinite retention is impermissible. Following the Appellate Tribunal's balanced mechanism, the Delhi High Court upheld the practice wherein original devices not forming part of the prosecution complaint are directed to be released to their owners once clone copies are extracted, subject to undertakings to preserve and produce the originals if summoned.

---

Practical Takeaways

• Audit Retention Orders: Litigants subjected to PMLA proceedings should review whether the agency secured independent retention approvals within the statutory 180-day threshold under Section 20 or Section 21. Absence of recorded reasons vitiates ongoing custody.
• Seek 'Clone and Return': Where commercial data or personal hardware is impounded, parties should formally apply for extraction of mirrored forensic images and seek the immediate restitution of the physical devices, particularly if the hardware is not alleged to be purchased from crime proceeds.
• Preservation Undertakings: Release of digital assets is routinely conditioned on strict undertakings to preserve original data intact, refrain from wiping operating systems, and produce the hardware whenever directed by the trial court.