Tribunal gives major relief to builder Bhosale in PMLA case

The case arose from a wider probe into alleged financial irregularities involving Yes Bank and DHFL, centred on Yes Bank’s ₹3,700-crore investment in DHFL debentures in 2018 and suspected kickbacks and diversion of funds.The ED had alleged that about ₹164.67 crore routed through various entities and eventually linked to Bhosale constituted “proceeds of crime”, leading to the attachment of multiple properties.

A key pillar of the tribunal’s ruling dated April 1, 2026, was its finding that several loan agreements involving Bhosale-linked entities were executed as early as 2014, well before the alleged offence in 2018. It held that there was no evidence to suggest any prior knowledge of wrongdoing at the time of these transactions and no foundational link connecting them to alleged proceeds of crime.

The tribunal said investigative agencies cannot retrospectively categorise legitimate commercial dealings as suspicious merely because funds later flowed through connected entities.

Rejecting the ED’s contention that certain loan agreements were “commercially irrational”, the tribunal underscored that assessing commercial wisdom falls outside the agency’s jurisdiction unless directly tied to a predicate offence. In the absence of complaints or proof of illegality, such transactions could not be deemed sham, it said.

The tribunal also dismissed the ED’s claim that ₹71.82 crore paid to Bhosale’s entities by DHFL was for “bogus consultancy services”. It noted that the agreements predated the alleged offence, payments had partly been made before 2018, and documentary evidence—including invoices—supported the rendering of services.

Accepting the ED’s argument, the tribunal observed, would imply treating even legitimate pre-crime transactions as money laundering, which is not legally tenable.

In a critical observation, the tribunal held that the ED had gone beyond the scope of the FIR and ECIR by scrutinising transactions that were neither part of the predicate offence nor alleged to be illegal. Such an approach, it said, amounted to jurisdictional overreach.

However, the tribunal upheld attachment to the extent of ₹25 crore linked to a delayed payment in a dairy sale transaction. All other attachments were set aside. The properties where the attachment stands include a 6,143-square-metre land parcel in Pune, attached for Rs 14.65 crore under the name of Samit Realty, and a 20,200-square-foot land parcel in Nagpur valued at Rs 15.52 crore, registered in the name of his wife, Gauri Bhosale.

The ruling marks an important judicial check on expansive interpretations of money laundering provisions.