Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam: PMLA Appellate Tribunal Upholds Attachment Of Ex-Excise Deputy Commissioner's Property

The PMLA Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Enforcement Directorate's attachment of a property worth ₹54 lakh belonging to a former Deputy Commissioner of Excise in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. 

Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman of the Tribunal held that the ED was entitled to attach the appellant's property as an equivalent-value asset since the actual proceeds of crime were no longer available, having been allegedly siphoned off or laundered.

"The paragraphs quoted above not only give interpretation to the definition of “proceeds of crime” but make a reference to the object of the Act of 2002 justifying the provisional attachment of property for “value thereof” to the proceeds of crime when the proceeds of crime are not found available having been vanished or laundered. Therefore, the respondent was within its right to provisionally attach the property for value thereof as the proceeds of crime were not found available with the appellant."

The case arose from an alleged ₹2,161 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh involving inflated procurement prices, illegal commissions, sale of unaccounted liquor through government-run shops using duplicate holograms, and alleged kickbacks through FL-10(A) licences to favoured entities between February 2019 and June 2022.

Following an FIR registered by the EOW Raipur in January 2024, the ED initiated a money laundering investigation and allegedly quantified proceeds of crime of ₹54 lakh against former Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Asheesh Srivastava, for facilitating the illegal liquor trade. The ED attached 75% of his Raipur residential property, valued at ₹54 lakh purchased in 2015.

Challenging the attachment, Srivastava argued that it predated the alleged crime period of 2019-2022 and had no connection with the alleged offence.

The Tribunal rejected this contention, relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the expression “proceeds of crime” in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.

It held that Section 2(1)(u) PMLA covers not only property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity but also property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds are unavailable.

The Tribunal further observed that allowing pre-existing properties to remain beyond the reach of attachment would enable accused persons to siphon off proceeds of crime and frustrate the object of the legislation.

The Tribunal also relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Dilbagh Singh and its own earlier decisions supporting attachment of equivalent-value properties.

It consequently confirmed the attachment order and dismissed the appeal.

For the Appellant: Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate, Sameer Shrivastava, Chiraj J, S.B. Tiwari, Advocates

For the Respondent: Anju Kaushik, Advocate