ED: PMLA Probe Valid on Private Complaint, No FIR Needed in National Herald Case

• The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued before the Delhi High Court that a private complaint alleging a scheduled offence can trigger a PMLA probe without an FIR.
• This argument was made while challenging a Special Court's 2025 order in the National Herald money laundering case involving Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.
• The Special Court had previously deemed the ED's complaint non-maintainable because the predicate offence originated from a private complaint, not an FIR.
• The ED cited Supreme Court judgments, including *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary*, to support its claim that PMLA does not require predicate offences to exclusively stem from FIRs.
• Justice Sachin Datta questioned the statutory basis of the ED's interpretation, asking at what point a private complaint would be sufficient to initiate a PMLA investigation.

By arguing that a private complaint, once cognized by a court, is sufficient to initiate a money laundering probe even without an FIR, the agency is advocating for a broader interpretation of its investigative powers.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently presented its case before the Delhi High Court, asserting that a money laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can be initiated based on a private complaint alleging a scheduled offence, even in the absence of a First Information Report (FIR). This argument was made during a hearing where the ED challenged a December 16, 2025, order from a Special Court concerning the alleged National Herald money laundering case involving Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.

The Special Court had previously declined to acknowledge the ED's prosecution complaint, reasoning that the underlying predicate offence stemmed from a private complaint filed by former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, rather than an FIR. However, that court did leave open the possibility for further investigation by the ED, contingent on a subsequent FIR registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The ED's current petition seeks to overturn the Special Court's decision, emphasizing that the source of the scheduled offence should not restrict its PMLA jurisdiction.

Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju contended before Justice Sachin Datta that legal frameworks do not differentiate between a scheduled offence originating from an FIR and one brought before a Magistrate via a private complaint. Raju cited the Supreme Court's ruling in *A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak*, which establishes that any individual can initiate criminal proceedings. He further argued that a Magistrate's decision to take cognisance of a private complaint involves judicial deliberation, thereby placing it on a 'higher footing' than an FIR that has not yet undergone investigation.

Furthermore, Raju referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary*, asserting that the PMLA does not mandate that a predicate offence must exclusively originate from an FIR. He also pointed to Section 44 of the PMLA to bolster the agency's position, suggesting that the filing of a private complaint disclosing a scheduled offence could be sufficient to activate the PMLA machinery, provided the complaint is not dismissed by a competent court. The ED, he maintained, should not be required to await the conclusion of proceedings related to the scheduled offence before commencing its own investigation.

Justice Datta, however, expressed reservations, repeatedly questioning the statutory foundation for the ED's interpretation. The judge specifically inquired, 'At what point would a private complaint be enough?' and sought clarification on whether the ED believed the mere filing of a complaint, irrespective of whether cognisance had been taken by a Magistrate, was sufficient to trigger an investigation.

The ED's robust stance in the National Herald case signals a potential expansion in the triggers for PMLA investigations. By arguing that a private complaint, once cognized by a court, is sufficient to initiate a money laundering probe even without an FIR, the agency is advocating for a broader interpretation of its investigative powers. This position suggests that the ED believes it can proceed with PMLA actions based on a wider array of initial complaints, moving beyond the traditional requirement of an FIR for predicate offences.

This development is significant as it could mean that individuals and entities might face PMLA scrutiny stemming from various types of initial complaints, potentially increasing the scope of compliance exposure. The agency's insistence that it need not wait for the conclusion of predicate offence proceedings further underscores its aggressive approach to initiating and conducting money laundering investigations, highlighting a shift towards more proactive enforcement based on diverse complaint origins.

This development indicates the Enforcement Directorate's aggressive stance on expanding the triggers for PMLA investigations, arguing that a private complaint alleging a scheduled offence, once cognized by a court, is sufficient to initiate a money laundering probe even without an FIR. Lawyers and compliance officers should note this potential broadening of ED's investigative powers, as it means clients could face PMLA scrutiny based on a wider array of initial complaints, increasing compliance exposure and the need for proactive risk assessment.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk