Expanding on "Proceeds of Crime": A Deeper Look at the Parvez Ahmed Case
- Sunny S
- Oct 1, 2025
- 5 min read
The Parvez Ahmed Versus Directorate of Enforcement case provides an excellent opportunity to examine the complexities of "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA. Let's break down the key elements of this case and its significance:
1. The Background of the Case:
The case revolved around three individuals: Parvez Ahmed, who served as the President of PFI's Delhi state unit from 2018 to 2020; Mohd. Ilyas, the General Secretary of the same unit from 2018 until his arrest; and Abdul Muqeet, the Office Secretary of the unit from 2017 until his arrest.
All three were arrested on September 22, 2022, under the PMLA.
The ED accused them of being involved in a criminal conspiracy to raise funds for the PFI, which the Ministry of Home Affairs declared an "unlawful association" and banned on September 27, 2022.
2. The ED's Allegations:
The ED alleged that the petitioners engaged in fundraising activities as part of a larger criminal conspiracy. They were accused of collecting funds from unknown sources, using fake receipts to disguise their origins as legitimate donations, and channeling these funds towards terrorist activities.
The ED argued that since the funds were intended for use in committing scheduled offenses (terrorist activities), they inherently qualified as "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA.
3. The Court's Analysis and Rejection of the ED's Interpretation:
The Delhi High Court disagreed with the ED's interpretation, emphasizing that merely intending to use funds for criminal activity does not automatically make them "proceeds of crime."
The court referred to the landmark Supreme Court case Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which provides a clear definition of "proceeds of crime": property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activityrelated to a scheduled offense.
The crucial point: The property must be generated after the commission of the scheduled offense or from its proceeds.
The court noted that the ED's argument effectively reversed this sequence, putting "the cart before the horse." The alleged criminal activity in this case (the Delhi Riots) occurred after the petitioners had collected the funds. This sequence undermined the ED's claim that the funds were "proceeds of crime."
4. Lack of Dominion and Control:
The court also pointed out that even if the funds were considered "proceeds of crime," the petitioners lacked the necessary "dominion and control" over them.
Their role was limited to collecting and depositing the funds into PFI accounts. Citing Manish Sisodia (I) v. CBI, the court highlighted that simply generating proceeds of crime doesn't equate to possessing or using them.
Dominion and control are essential elements of possession under the PMLA. In this case, the PFI, not the petitioners, exercised control over the funds.
5. Bail Granted:
Based on this analysis, the court determined that the ED failed to establish the offense of money laundering against the petitioners.
The court also considered the extended period of incarceration the petitioners had already endured (over two years) and the unlikelihood of a speedy trial.
Taking these factors into account, the court granted bail to the petitioners subject to specific conditions.
The Significance of the Parvez Ahmed Case:
This judgment reinforces the importance of strictly interpreting "proceeds of crime" within the legal framework of the PMLA. It clarifies that:
The generation of property must be a direct consequence of the scheduled offense. Simply intending to use funds for future criminal activities does not make them "proceeds of crime."
Dominion and control over the alleged "proceeds of crime" are crucial to establishing possession under the PMLA.
This decision provides valuable guidance for future cases involving allegations of money laundering, emphasizing the need for a robust evidentiary foundation that demonstrates a clear link between the property in question and the underlying criminal activity.f
FAQ: Bail in context of “proceeds of crime” in Parvez Ahmed Case
What are the primary allegations against the petitioners in these bail applications?
The petitioners, Parvez Ahmed, Mohd. Ilyas, and Abdul Muqeet, are accused of involvement in a criminal conspiracy to raise and utilize funds for unlawful activities on behalf of the Popular Front of India (PFI), a banned organization. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleges that they collected funds from unknown sources, provided fake receipts, and misrepresented these collections as legitimate donations. The ED claims these funds were then used to finance terrorist activities.
What are the specific roles attributed to each petitioner in the alleged offenses?
Parvez Ahmed: As the former president of PFI's Delhi state unit, he is accused of overseeing fundraising activities and managing bank accounts, raising a total of Rs. 2.14 crore between January 2018 and December 2020.
Mohd. Ilyas: The General Secretary of PFI's Delhi State Unit at the time of his arrest, he allegedly managed PFI operations and fundraising in Delhi's Trans-Yamuna area. He is also accused of attempting to legitimize bogus donations and intentionally providing incomplete donor details to avoid verification.
Abdul Muqeet: As the Office Secretary, he is accused of collecting cash donations in Mulla Colony, Delhi.
What is the ED's argument for denying bail to the petitioners?
The ED argues that the petitioners' alleged actions constitute money laundering, a serious offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). They contend that the funds raised were proceeds of crime generated through criminal conspiracy and used to finance terrorist activities, including the Delhi riots of February 2020.
What are the petitioners' main arguments in support of their bail applications?
The petitioners argue that the ED's case misinterprets the concept of "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA. They maintain that the funds collected were intended for future unlawful activities, not generated as a result of those activities, and therefore do not meet the PMLA's definition of "proceeds of crime." They also argue that they did not have control over the alleged proceeds of crime, as they deposited the funds into PFI accounts managed by others. Additionally, the petitioners emphasize their prolonged incarceration (over two years) and the unlikelihood of a speedy trial as grounds for their release.
What is the significance of "proceeds of crime" in this case?
"Proceeds of crime" is a core element of the offense of money laundering under the PMLA. To establish a money laundering offense, the ED must prove that the funds in question were generated as a result of criminal activity related to a scheduled offense listed in the PMLA.
What is the court's interpretation of "proceeds of crime" in relation to the petitioners' activities?
The court, relying on precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, clarified that "proceeds of crime" must be generated as a result of a scheduled offense, not merely collected with the intention of committing future offenses. The court found that the ED's case, in which the collection of funds preceded the alleged criminal activity, did not align with the legal requirements for "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA.
How does the court address the issue of the petitioners' prolonged incarceration?
The court acknowledges that the petitioners have spent over two years in custody and that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. Citing constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and the principle of "bail as a rule, jail as an exception," the court emphasizes that prolonged incarceration should not be used as punishment before conviction. The court also highlights recent Supreme Court judgments that uphold the power of constitutional courts to grant bail in cases involving stringent bail conditions under special statutes like the PMLA, especially when trials are delayed.
What is the court's final decision regarding the bail applications?
Based on the interpretation of "proceeds of crime" and considering the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners, the court grants bail to all three petitioners, Parvez Ahmed, Mohd. Ilyas, and Abdul Muqeet, subject to specific conditions, including surrendering their passports, providing contact information, and refraining from any contact with witnesses. The court clarifies that its observations are limited to the bail applications and do not affect the merits of the pending case.
