Arun Suri vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 16 February, 2026
7. It has been argued that subject property could not have been
attached as "value thereof" in terms of Section 2(1) (u) of PMLA,
2002, since the said property was never actually purchased by the
appellant himself. The right of the appellant in the subject property
has flown through his deceased father and thus, it was wholly
impermissible to rely upon Section 2(1) (u) of PMLA to attach the
said property. Placing reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court
in H.M. Malthesh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, dated 18th
December 2020 in Criminal Petition No. 584 of 2018, it is argued that
as per Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, only these tainted properties, which
are obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity
relating to scheduled offence, can be termed as "proceeds of crime",
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALIMisc. Appeal (PMLA) 13/2026 Page 2 of 5
PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.02.2026
14:52
which is not the situation in the present case, as the subject property
was not purchased by the appellant's money but was rather purchased
by his father from his own money.