The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant ruling in a major cyber fraud case, refusing to quash the money laundering proceedings against an individual linked to hundreds of 'digital arrest' scams. The court found the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) actions, including a slight delay in procedural formalities, to be justified under the law.
Court Upholds ED's Procedure in High-Profile Arrest
On Wednesday, Justice Suvra Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court declined to dismiss the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against Yogesh Dua. Dua is allegedly connected to a staggering 930 cases of 'digital arrest' fraud, a sophisticated cybercrime where victims are falsely told they are under arrest by authorities like the CBI or police over the phone and extorted for money.
The legal challenge centered on the procedure followed by the ED during Dua's arrest. Yogesh Dua was arrested by the ED on February 23. Subsequently, based on the initial FIR, the ED registered its own PMLA case on March 24, 2025. He was later produced before a lower court on April 4, where he was formally arrested under the PMLA provisions.
The Crucial Argument Over 'Reasonable Time'
Dua's counsel argued that the ED had violated Section 19 of the PMLA. This section mandates the process for arrest, requiring the officer to have written 'reasons to believe' based on material evidence. Furthermore, Section 19(2) states that the arrest order and the supporting material must be forwarded to the adjudicating authority within a 'reasonable time'.
The defense claimed two key breaches:
- The ED's 'reasons to believe' were allegedly based merely on an ongoing probe, not concrete material.
- The required documents—both the 'grounds of arrest' and the 'reasons to believe'—were sent to the adjudicating authority three days after the arrest, which was argued to be an unreasonable delay.
However, the ED successfully defended this delay. The agency explained that immediately following Dua's arrest, there were two consecutive holidays. Therefore, the documents were forwarded on April 7. The court accepted this explanation.
Judicial Interpretation Seals the Case
Justice Ghosh, in the ruling, addressed the core issue of what constitutes 'reasonable time.' The court noted that this term is defined as "such length of time as may, properly and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances."
Applying this definition, the bench held that the ED was able to justify the three-day delay due to the intervening holidays. The court concluded that the delay was not unreasonable in the given context, and thus, there was no flouting of the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA.
This ruling reinforces the procedural latitude investigative agencies can have under the PMLA, especially when external circumstances like holidays cause minor delays. It also marks a setback for the accused in one of the largest organized digital fraud networks uncovered recently, allowing the ED to continue its probe and prosecution in the high-stakes money laundering case.
