PMLA Appellate Tribunal Upholds Attachment Of Rashmi Prasad's Properties In ₹564 Crore Ritz Consultancy Case

Observing that Rashmi Prasad failed to prove that the ₹18.81 crore she received from Amber Dalal and Ritz Consultancy Services were returns on genuine investments, the PMLA Appellate Tribunal upheld the attachment of her properties in the alleged ₹564.33 crore Ritz Consultancy investor fraud case.

The matter was heard by Chairman Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, who said Rashmi's reliance on bank statements and other documents was insufficient to establish that she was a genuine investor, particularly since she failed to disclose the source of the funds she claimed to have invested.

“The reference of the bank statement and other documents was given but those were not indicative and proof of investment by the appellant. It is more so while making investment, the appellant should have shown the source of the money that was invested,” the tribunal observed.

The case stems from an FIR alleging that Amber Dalal, proprietor of M/s Ritz Consultancy Services, lured investors into a commodity trading scheme by assuring them that their capital would remain safe and promising monthly returns of 1.5% to 1.8%. Investors were asked to transfer funds through banking channels into Ritz Consultancy's account.

While the initial allegations involved cheating of 56 investors of ₹54.45 crore, the investigation later found that around 2,015 investors were allegedly cheated of ₹564.33 crore.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, Rashmi, a personal acquaintance of Dalal, received ₹18.81 crore from Dalal and Ritz Consultancy Services, returned ₹3.77 crore, and retained ₹15.04 crore. ED subsequently provisionally attached six of her properties, treating some as properties allegedly acquired from proceeds of crime and others as equivalent-value properties.

Rashmi challenged the Adjudicating Authority's orders confirming the attachment, arguing that she was herself an investor in Ritz Consultancy and had invested over ₹10.5 crore in the scheme through banking channels and through her entities, M/s Arya and M/s Garima Fashion. She claimed the sums received from Dalal were investment returns and not proceeds of crime.

ED opposed the appeals, arguing that the investigation found no evidence supporting Rashmi's claim that she had invested in Ritz Consultancy and that the money received by her represented proceeds of crime routed from the accused.

The tribunal noted that Rashmi failed to produce documentary proof such as a memorandum of understanding, agreement, or similar documents to support her claim of investment. It observed that while such documentation existed for other investors, none existed in her favour.

The Tribunal further noted that Ritz Consultancy's internal records categorised transactions linked to Rashmi as income or expenses rather than investments. Statements of former employees also supported this finding.

It also found that Rashmi failed to establish the source of the funds she claimed to have invested. The Tribunal specifically referred to unexplained cash transactions in 2019 that were relied on to support her investment claim.

“In view of the above, I don't find the appellant to be an innocent investor with M/s Ritz Consultancy Services in the absence of sufficient proof,” the Tribunal observed.

Rejecting her challenge to the attachment of properties acquired before the alleged crime period, the Tribunal held that equivalent-value properties could also be attached where direct proceeds of crime were unavailable or not traceable.

The tribunal ultimately dismissed both appeals through a common order, while clarifying that the attachment orders would remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal trial.

For the Appellant: Advocates Harshad Bhadbade, Nikita Mandaniyan, Shagufa, Samriddi Jain

For the Respondent(s): Advocate Kshitiz Aggarwal, Advocate