The Calcutta High Court, in Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited v. Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, CRR 1145 of 2024, examined the circumstances in which a person against whom no case was made out in the scheduled offence could nevertheless be proceeded against under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). The Court quashed the PMLA proceedings against Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited (“LDC”), principally finding that the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) did not establish the requisite connection between LDC and the alleged proceeds of crime. The decision is particularly relevant for its examination of the findings recorded during the investigation into the predicate offence, the evidentiary value of a co-accused's statement and the requirement of a demonstrable nexus with “proceeds of crime” for attracting Section 3 of the PMLA.
Brief Facts
The proceedings arose out of an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) concerning an alleged loss of approximately ₹234.57 crore to the Central Bank of India. During the course of the investigation, allegations were made regarding transactions involving, inter alia, Prakash Vanijya Private Limited (“PVPL”) and Quality Vintrade Private Limited (“QVPL”).
Subsequently, the ED registered an ECIR and initiated proceedings under the PMLA. The allegation against LDC was primarily founded upon three transactions wherein LDC purchased commodities from QVPL and sold the commodities to PVPL on the same day.
LDC challenged the proceedings before the High Court. One of the significant factual circumstances considered by the Court was that LDC had not been arrayed as an accused in the predicate offence. More importantly, the CBI had investigated the transactions and had not found LDC to be a beneficiary of the alleged diversion of funds.
Absence of Accusation in the Scheduled Offence Not, By Itself, Determinative
The Court did not accept the proposition that merely because a person has not been made an accused in the scheduled offence, proceedings under the PMLA would necessarily be impermissible.
The Court recognised that the offence of money laundering is distinct from the scheduled offence and that a person may become involved in the laundering of proceeds of crime even if such person was not an accused in the predicate offence. Therefore, the absence of an individual's name from the scheduled offence cannot, by itself, provide a complete answer to a PMLA prosecution.
However, the Court distinguished the present case on its facts. Here, the role of LDC and the transactions forming the basis of the ED's allegations had already been examined during the investigation into the predicate offence. The CBI had not found LDC to be a beneficiary of the alleged transactions or diversion of funds.
Thus, the Court's decision was not founded merely upon the fact that LDC had not been named as an accused in the scheduled offence. Rather, significance was attached to the specific findings of the investigating agency following examination of the transactions and the role of LDC.
Requirement of Nexus With Proceeds of Crime
The Court also considered the statutory requirement of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.
Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 929, the Court observed that the existence of proceeds of crime is foundational to the offence of money laundering under Section 3. The property in question must have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
In the circumstances before it, the Court found that the material relied upon by the ED did not establish the necessary link between LDC and the alleged proceeds of crime. The fact that LDC had entered into the transactions relied upon by the ED could not, in itself, establish that the company had dealt with proceeds of crime.
The Court also took note of the nature of the transactions involving warehouse receipts and the applicable warehousing framework and did not accept that the transactions could, merely on that basis, be treated as sham or paper transactions.
Reliance on Statement of Co-Accused
Another important aspect considered by the Court was the ED's reliance upon the statement of a co-accused.
The Court referred to the settled principle that a confession or statement of a co-accused cannot, by itself, constitute the foundation for conviction. The evidence against an accused must first be considered independently, and the statement of a co-accused may thereafter be considered in support of other evidence.
The Court found that, in the present case, the material relied upon by the ED did not independently establish the involvement of LDC in the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime. The statement relied upon by the ED therefore could not, in the absence of sufficient corroborative material, supply the missing link.
QVPL Not Being an Accused
The Court also considered the position of QVPL, from which LDC had purchased the commodities. QVPL had not been arrayed as an accused either in the predicate proceedings or in the PMLA proceedings.
This circumstance was considered by the Court while examining the ED's case concerning the transactions. The Court found that the mere occurrence of transactions between the entities, without independent material demonstrating that the transactions represented dealings in proceeds of crime, was insufficient to sustain the prosecution against LDC.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court ultimately allowed the revision petition and quashed the PMLA proceedings against Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited.
The significance of the decision lies in the Court’s examination of the material relied upon to establish a nexus between the accused and the alleged proceeds of crime. In the present case, the transactions in question and the role of LDC had already been examined during the investigation into the predicate offence, wherein the CBI had not found LDC to be a beneficiary of the alleged diversion of funds. The Court further found that the ED had failed to place sufficient independent material establishing LDC’s connection with the alleged proceeds of crime.
In these circumstances, the statement of a co-accused, in the absence of sufficient independent and corroborative material, could not by itself provide the requisite basis for proceeding against LDC for the offence of money laundering. Accordingly, the Court found that continuation of the PMLA proceedings against LDC was not justified and quashed the proceedings against it.
Authored By
Rajat Jain, Advocate
Vaish Associates Advocates
Email id: rajatjain@vaishlaw.com
Mobile No. 9953887311
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajat-jain-75772398/
© 2026, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
