PMLA Appellate Tribunal Upholds ₹3.33 Crore Attachment Against Dr Jagdeesh Sagar, Wife In Vyapam PMT Scam

The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has recently upheld the attachment of assets worth about Rs. 3.33 crore in the Vyapam-linked Pre-Medical Test (PMT) exam scam. It held that properties can be attached even if they are in the name of a spouse, as long as they are linked to proceeds of crime.

A bench of member V. Anandarajan upheld the 2015 order confirming the Enforcement Directorate's actions against Dr. Jagdeesh Sagar and his wife Dr. Sunita Sagar.

“In light of the above, it is evident that the property jointly standing in the name of Dr. Sunita Sagar were also purchased out of the proceeds of crime provided by Dr. Jagdeesh Sagar. The legal position is very clear that under the PMLA that the sweep of Section 5(1) is not limited to the accused named in the scheduled offence. It would apply to any person (not necessarily being accused in the scheduled offence), if he is involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime."

The case arises from large-scale manipulation of the Pre-Medical Test (PMT) examination conducted in 2013, an entrance test for medical admissions. Dr. Jagdeesh Sagar was identified by investigators as the main person behind the conspiracy and was involved in organised cheating, impersonation of candidates, and manipulation of admissions.

Investigations also indicated that such illegal activity had been going on since around 2008. Based on the police case, the Enforcement Directorate initiated a money laundering probe and attached assets worth over Rs.3.3 crore.

Before the tribunal, the appellants argued that they were denied a fair hearing as Dr. Sagar was in custody and had not been properly served notice. They also said the properties were bought before the alleged offence and had no connection with any illegal proceeds. It was further argued that Sunita Sagar, who is not an accused and has her own income, could not have her properties attached.

The tribunal rejected these arguments. It found that notice had been duly served and acknowledged and that the appellant failed to respond despite being given an opportunity. “In trying to allege denial of opportunity of being heard, the appellant is trying to take advantage of his own wrong,” it observed.

On the timing of the purchases, the tribunal noted that material on record showed the illegal activity dated back to around 2008 and held that, in any case, the law allows attachment of the value of proceeds of crime, making the date of purchase less relevant.

It also noted that Sunita Sagar could not explain the source of funds for the properties in her name. The tribunal reiterated that attachment under the law is not limited to the accused but extends to anyone holding proceeds of crime.

Finding no infirmity in the earlier order, the tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the attachment.

For Appellants: Advocates Anurag Ojha, Vipul Kumar, Priyalam Bhardwaj

For Respondent (ED): Advocate Nidhi Raman