PMLA Appellate Tribunal Sets Aside Fairplay Asset Attachment Over ₹100-Crore Viacom18 Loss From IPL Streaming

The PMLA Appellate Tribunal has set aside orders confirming the attachment of properties and seizure and freezing of assets linked to Fairplay, a betting website/app that the Enforcement Directorate alleged was controlled by Krish Shah.

The case arose from an alleged ₹100-crore-plus loss to Viacom18 over unauthorised streaming and broadcasting of IPL content.

Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman of the tribunal, held that the ED could not rely on subsequent FIRs to sustain attachment and freezing orders that were originally based on an FIR later quashed by the Bombay High court.

The original FIR, registered on April 20, 2023, against Fairplay Sport LLC and Play Ventures N.V., alleged that the entities had unauthorisedly streamed and broadcast sports content.

The alleged activities caused a financial loss of more than ₹100 crore to Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd. and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused entities and their associates.

The FIR invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act and Copyright Act. The ED subsequently recorded an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and began a PMLA investigation.

During the investigation, the ED provisionally attached properties. It also searched premises, seized articles and froze bank and Demat accounts.

The Bombay High court later quashed the proceedings arising from FIR No.04/2023 by an order dated February 12, 2025, following an understanding between the parties.

The tribunal noted that the predicate offence involved in the FIR no longer remained after the high court's order.

By then, several other FIRs had been registered. These contained allegations relating to betting, unlawful gambling and other activities.

The ED subsequently issued an addendum to the ECIR incorporating the subsequent FIRs into its investigation.

The appellants, including Krish Shah, whom the ED alleged was the owner and controller of the Fairplay Betting Website/App, argued that the subsequent FIRs could not be used to justify the attachment, seizure and freezing orders.

They pointed out that the subsequent FIRs were not mentioned in the Provisional Attachment Orders or the “Reasons to Believe” recorded by the ED.

They were also absent from the Original Complaint seeking confirmation of the attachment and the applications filed under Section 17(4) of the PMLA concerning the seized and frozen assets.

The tribunal agreed with this part of the appellants' argument.

Justice Bhandari observed that the subsequent FIRs could have given the ED a fresh basis to investigate and take appropriate action separately.

But they could not be used to justify orders that had originally been passed on the basis of FIR No.04/2023.

“In those orders, I find reference only of FIR No.04/2023 and not of the subsequent FIRs to find out the proceeds of crime,” Justice Bhandari observed.

“Thus, subsequent FIRs containing the allegations and the amount involved therein were not part of the Provisional Attachment Order and the Original Complaint under challenge.”

A Provisional Attachment Order is an interim measure under the PMLA through which property suspected to be linked to proceeds of crime can be prevented from being dealt with or transferred.

The Original Complaint is then placed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking confirmation of the attachment.

Section 17 of the PMLA deals with search and seizure. An application under Section 17(4) is used to seek retention of seized articles and continuation of the freezing of bank and Demat accounts.

The tribunal found that the later prosecution complaint could not cure the omission in the original proceedings.

The subsequent FIRs, the allegations in them, the role attributed to the appellants and the quantification of proceeds were not part of the original attachment and seizure proceedings.

“Subsequent FIRs could give fresh cause to the respondents to take up the issue and after causing investigation, to pass appropriate order,” the tribunal observed.

“It could not have been done by the Adjudicating Authority in absence of Original Complaint and Original Application referring to the subsequent FIRs with quantification of the proceeds involved therein.”

The tribunal did not decide the appellants' separate argument that betting was not a predicate offence under the PMLA.

It held that the issue did not need to be examined because the subsequent FIRs had not been relied on when the original attachment and seizure action was taken.

It consequently set aside the orders confirming the provisional attachment of properties, allowing retention of seized articles and continuing the freezing of bank and Demat accounts.

The batch comprised 53 appeals, all of which were allowed.

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary; Advocate Rahul Hakani; Advocate Sajal Yadav; Advocate Prem Gada; Advocate Vishesh Srivastava; Advocate Anubhav Singh; Advocate Nikhil Wase; Advocate Shrey Sinha; Advocate Parth Davar; Advocate Swetab Kumar; Advocate Adnan Sarang; Advocate Rishul Seth; Advocate Faraz.

For Respondents: Advocate Abhimanyu Kaul.