PMLA Tribunal Confirms ₹50 Lakh Attachment in Syndicate Bank Bribery Case; Sets Aside Adjudicating Authority Order

March 12, 2026 : The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has confirmed the provisional attachment of ₹50 lakh allegedly linked to a bribery transaction involving former Syndicate Bank CMD Sudhir Kumar Jain, holding that the amount constitutes “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Allowing the appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s 2018 order which had declined to confirm the attachment. The bench comprising Members Balesh Kumar and Rajesh Malhotra found that the earlier conclusion—that no scheduled offence was made out—was contrary to the record.

The case originates from a CBI investigation into alleged corruption in loan sanctioning practices during Jain’s tenure as CMD of Syndicate Bank. The probe revealed that Jain allegedly demanded ₹50 lakh from Bhushan Steel’s Vice Chairman and Managing Director Neeraj Singhal to prevent the company’s loan account from being classified as a non-performing asset (NPA). The amount was routed through intermediaries and ultimately delivered to Jain’s relatives, Puneet and Vineet Godha, from whose possession the cash was recovered in a trap operation on August 1, 2014.

The Tribunal noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered an FIR and subsequently filed a charge sheet under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges have already been framed, and trial is ongoing. In this backdrop, the Tribunal held that the existence of a predicate offence was clearly established, providing sufficient basis for initiating attachment proceedings under the PMLA.

Rejecting the respondents’ contention that the seized amount represented sale proceeds of property, the Tribunal termed the defence an “afterthought strategy.” It observed that statements recorded during the investigation, along with corroborative evidence such as intercepted communications, indicated that the money was received as illegal gratification.

Addressing the argument that the cash was already in court custody and therefore beyond risk of dissipation, the Tribunal clarified that attachment under the PMLA serves a distinct purpose. It emphasized that such attachment is an interim measure aimed at preserving property for eventual confiscation in the event of conviction, and can proceed irrespective of the property being in judicial custody.

Importantly, the Tribunal underscored that the filing of an FIR and charge sheet constitutes strong prima facie material to form the “reason to believe” required under Section 5 of the PMLA for provisional attachment.

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the ED’s appeal and confirmed Provisional Attachment Order No. 07/2018 dated March 31, 2018. It clarified, however, that its findings are limited to the attachment proceedings and will not prejudice the outcome of the ongoing criminal trial.

Case Details:
Case Title: Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Shri Puneet Godha & Ors.
Case No.: FPA-PMLA-2681/DLI/2018
Coram: Balesh Kumar (Member), Rajesh Malhotra (Member)
Date of Order: March 12, 2026