Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Madhuri Malegaonkar and Mr. Paras Aneja v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Judgment

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of the applicant, Amrit Pal Singh in ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-II/24/2022, under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002. BAIL APPLN. 1322/2025 Page 1 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 14:58:42 Background

2. The Applicant, Shri Amrit Pal Singh, a resident of Hong Kong for the past 17 years, is the Director of M/s. Broway Group Ltd. His company has been arrayed as Accused No.8 in the first supplementary complaint dated 31.01.2023 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), alleging commission of offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4, read with Section 70 of the PMLA. The complaint alleges that his company received a sum of Rs. 20.75 Crores from M/s Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd., an Indian entity, purportedly for the import of Photosensitive Semiconductor Devices. The Applicant contends that the transaction was a bona fide business dealing duly supported by documentary evidence, including invoices, airway bills, bill of entry, and remittance records bearing purpose code S0102 (payment for imports).

The complaint stems from an FIR registered by EOW, Delhi Police, against various entities, including M/s. Kinzal Freight Forwarding Pvt. Ltd., for forging Form 15CBs and allegedly facilitating illegal remittance of over Rs. 300 Crores outside India. It is the Applicant’s case that he was neither named in the predicate offence nor aware of any illegality in the remittances made to his company. Despite this, his company was named in the supplementary PMLA complaint, and he was not served with any notice or summons BAIL APPLN. 1322/2025 Page 2 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 14:58:42 to being arraigned as an accused. The Directorate of Enforcement allegedly failed to take proper steps for service through the Ministry of Home Affairs and failed to attach requisite documents for service in Hong Kong, as per protocol. When the Applicant travelled to India on 27.01.2025 to attend to his ailing father, he was intercepted at Amritsar Airport due to a Look Out Circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

4. Upon being served with a summons under Section 50 of the PMLA on the same day, the Applicant, citing medical exigencies concerning his critically ill father, sought adjournment via WhatsApp and email communication with the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate. Despite his cooperation and expression of willingness to participate in the proceedings, he was apprehensive of coercive action and arrest. The Applicant therefore preferred an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court on 19.03.2025, asserting that he was not involved in any illicit activity, that the entire transaction was legitimate and duly documented, and that he posed no flight risk, being willing to appear before the Court. Interim protection was granted and extended during the pendency of the application, which was eventually dismissed on 27.03.2025 due to non-fulfilment of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. Role of the applicant as per ED:

5. The applicant, Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, is the Director of M/s Broway Group Limited, a company incorporated in Hong Kong, BAIL APPLN. 1322/2025 Page 3 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 14:58:42 which has been arrayed as Accused No. 8 in the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 31.01.2023 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement. During the investigation, it was revealed that the said company was the beneficiary of fraudulent foreign outward remittances amounting to USD 2,880,210 (approximately INR 20.75 crores), originating from Indian shell entities including M/s Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd. These transactions were made under the guise of import of goods, without any actual corresponding business activity. It is alleged that the funds were layered and projected as untainted, constituting the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant, by virtue of his position and control over M/s Broway Group Limited, is alleged to have knowingly facilitated the concealment, possession, and use of proceeds of crime, and is thus implicated in the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act.

6. The role of the applicant is further substantiated by the statements of co-accused Rahul Kumar and Chitra Pandey recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, which disclose a systematic modus operandi involving incorporation of shell companies using forged identities, fabrication of import-export documentation, and remittance of funds abroad, followed by deliberate non-realisation of export proceeds and sham transactions to justify the defaults. Although the applicant’s address details were not initially available in the official Hong Kong company records, his whereabouts were traced in December 2024 through sustained efforts. In view of his foreign BAIL APPLN. 1322/2025 Page 4 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 14:58:42 business interests, particularly in M/s Broway Group Limited, which was a direct recipient of tainted funds, the applicant was deemed a flight risk. Accordingly, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued to secure his presence for investigation and subsequent trial proceedings. Submissions of the Applicant:

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the remittance received by the Applicant’s Company, M/s. Broway Group Ltd., Hong Kong (Accused No.8), from M/s. Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd., India, pertains to genuine import transactions involving the supply of photosensitive semiconductor devices. The said transactions are substantiated by Bills of Entry assessed by the Customs Authority and are thus squarely covered under Purpose Code S0102 as “payment towards import – settlement of invoice” under Rule 37BB(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which exempts such transactions from requiring Form 15CA/CB certification. It has been submitted that the FIR, ECIR, complaint, and supplementary complaint revolve solely around alleged forged Form 15CA/CB certificates, whereas in the applicant's case, no such form was used or required, thereby taking the applicant’s transaction outside the scope of the alleged scheduled offence. The test laid down in paragraph 237 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, and reiterated in Prem Prakash v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 787, has not been satisfied as neither is there a scheduled offence in the applicant's case nor any proceeds of crime attributable to the Applicant. Accordingly, BAIL APPLN. 1322/2025 Page 5 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 14:58:42 the learned counsel argues that the applicant has not been involved, either directly or indirectly, in any process or activity related to proceeds of crime.

8. It has further been submitted that the Applicant, being the sole director of the said company (a one-person company), has been arrayed as Accused No.8 only in a representative capacity and not in his individual capacity. The prosecution's reliance on vicarious liability under Section 70 of the PMLA, 2002, which is pari materia to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and does not automatically warrant prosecution unless the foundational facts of money laundering are made out, which is not the case here. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement,