- within Government and Public Sector topic(s)
- in India
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Government, Public Sector, Intellectual Property and Environment topic(s)
The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 16.02.2026 in Arun Suri v. Directorate of Enforcement,1 held that ancestral or inherited property can be attached as "equivalent value" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA") where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable.
The Court held that the definition of "proceeds of crime" includes not only tainted property but also property equivalent in value, and the PMLA does not exempt ancestral or inherited property from attachment.
Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India2, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank3, and Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement4, the Court reiterated that even untainted property may be attached as equivalent value under the PMLA and the ancestral or inherited property does not enjoy immunity from attachment under the PMLA.
Footnotes
1. Misc. Appeal (PMLA) 13/2026
2. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929
3. (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7854
4. (2022) SCC OnLine Del 2087
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
