The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment of assets worth ₹16.58 crore belonging to Shravan Gupta, former managing director of Emaar MGF Land, in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter case.

In an order dated November 4, 2026, the tribunal dismissed Gupta’s appeal, rejecting his challenge to the attachment of properties that he claimed had been in his possession for 36 years, well before the alleged offence took place.

Gupta had argued that the properties could not be treated as proceeds of crime because they were acquired long before the alleged money laundering and were not purchased with illicit funds. He also questioned why the ED had attached his assets when it had allegedly identified the companies through which the money was routed. The tribunal, however, upheld the agency’s use of the equivalent-value provision under the PMLA, which allows investigators to attach other assets when the actual proceeds of crime cannot be traced or reached.

The attachment relates to the ED’s allegation that Gupta received approximately ₹28.69 crore through a network of five foreign companies that he allegedly controlled. Gupta has denied the allegations and disputed the agency’s claims about his involvement in the transactions.

How The PMLA Allows The ED To Attach Untainted Property

At the heart of the dispute is the definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The provision does not limit the term to property directly generated through criminal activity. It also covers the value of such property, allowing the ED to attach assets equivalent to the alleged proceeds of crime in certain circumstances.

This distinction becomes important when money obtained through an alleged offence has been transferred across jurisdictions, concealed through multiple entities or otherwise placed beyond the reach of investigators. If the original proceeds cannot be located or are insufficient to cover the amount involved, the agency can seek attachment of other assets belonging to the person accused of benefiting from the transactions. Such assets need not have been purchased using the allegedly laundered money.

The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and earlier judicial interpretations of the provision to uphold this principle. However, the power is not unlimited.

The attachment must be linked to the value of the alleged proceeds of crime, and the statutory conditions for invoking the equivalent-value provision must be met. The law also recognises protections for bona fide third parties who may have legitimate interests in the property.

In Gupta’s case, the tribunal’s decision turns on this distinction between attaching the actual proceeds of crime and attaching other property of equivalent value. His argument that the assets predated the alleged offence was therefore not, by itself, sufficient to prevent their attachment.

The AgustaWestland Helicopter Scandal And The Alleged €70-Million Kickback

The case originates in India’s controversial acquisition of 12 AW-101 VVIP helicopters from Anglo-Italian manufacturer AgustaWestland, a subsidiary of Italy’s Finmeccanica, now known as Leonardo.

The contract, signed on February 8, 2010, was valued at approximately €556 million. The helicopters were intended to transport the President, Prime Minister and other senior government functionaries.

The procurement came under scrutiny after Italian investigators uncovered allegations that intermediaries had been paid to influence the deal. The alleged kickbacks amounted to €70 million, with investigators tracing two principal payment streams.

Around €42 million was allegedly routed through companies linked to British middleman Christian Michel James, while another €28 million was connected to entities associated with Carlo Gerosa and Guido Haschke.

The investigation also raised questions about changes to the helicopter’s operational requirements. The ceiling requirement for operating altitude was reportedly reduced from 6,000 metres to 4,500 metres, making AgustaWestland’s aircraft eligible for the contract. The allegations eventually triggered investigations in India, with the CBI registering an FIR on March 12, 2013.

India terminated the contract with AgustaWestland with effect from January 1, 2014, citing alleged contractual violations and corruption. The ED subsequently opened its money-laundering investigation to trace the suspected kickbacks and identify those who allegedly benefited from the payments.

Following The Money To Shravan Gupta And Five Offshore Companies

The ED’s case against Gupta centres on an alleged money trail connecting the helicopter deal’s intermediaries to a network of overseas companies. According to the agency, approximately ₹28.69 crore reached entities linked to Gupta through five foreign companies that he allegedly controlled: Natille Overseas Inc., Timekeeper Limited, Hall Park Property Holdings Limited, Mayfair Trust Management SA and Itasca International Limited.

The agency’s investigation examined payments made by Agusta SpA to companies associated with Gerosa and Haschke. One of the key entities was IDS Technology and Engineering SARL, which allegedly received €24.37 million. Of this amount, approximately €12.4 million was transferred to Interstellar Technologies Limited in Mauritius. The ED alleged that funds were subsequently routed through foreign entities before reaching companies connected to Gupta.

To establish Gupta’s alleged control over the five companies, the agency relied on financial records, emails, trust documents, loan agreements and statements recorded during its investigation under Section 50 of the PMLA. It also cited instructions allegedly issued by Gupta to employees and his role in the management of certain entities and trusts.

The tribunal examined this material while considering Gupta’s challenge to the attachment. Gupta, however, disputed the ED’s conclusions, denying that he controlled the companies or had any involvement in the alleged kickback transactions. He maintained that the agency had relied on inferences rather than concrete evidence linking him to the offence.

Why The ED Could Not Reach The Original Proceeds Of Crime

A central part of the ED’s argument was that the alleged proceeds had moved through foreign companies and offshore financial structures, making it difficult for Indian investigators to attach the original assets.

The agency told the tribunal that the five companies allegedly controlled by Gupta were incorporated outside India and that their assets were not readily available for attachment under Indian proceedings.

The ED consequently argued that it was entitled to proceed against Gupta’s properties in India as an alternative means of securing assets equivalent to the alleged proceeds of crime. The agency described him as an ultimate beneficiary of the transactions and maintained that the attachment was necessary because the money trail extended across several jurisdictions.

Gupta challenged this approach, arguing that the ED had identified the companies and the alleged route taken by the funds. In his view, the agency could not simply move on to his personal properties without establishing the statutory basis for doing so. The tribunal, however, accepted the ED’s position that the equivalent-value provision could be invoked when the original proceeds were beyond its reach.

Why Gupta’s 36-year-old Property Did Not Escape Attachment

Gupta’s principal objection was that the properties had been in his possession for 36 years and had no connection with the alleged helicopter deal. He argued that assets acquired long before the alleged offence could not be treated as proceeds of crime, particularly when the ED had not established that they were purchased using money generated through the alleged kickbacks.

The tribunal’s reasoning rested on the distinction between property directly derived from criminal activity and property attached as an equivalent value.

Under the latter provision, the date on which an asset was acquired does not automatically protect it from attachment. If the actual proceeds of crime cannot be traced or are unavailable, other properties belonging to the accused may be attached up to the corresponding value, subject to the conditions prescribed under the law.

In Gupta’s case, the tribunal found that the ED had made out sufficient grounds to sustain the ₹16.58-crore attachment.

Non-Bailable Warrants And Gupta’s Other Legal Battles

The attachment proceedings are only one part of the legal action against Gupta in the AgustaWestland case. He has also been facing proceedings relating to his failure to appear before investigators. A non-bailable warrant was issued against him on August 29, 2020. The Delhi High Court subsequently rejected his plea seeking cancellation of the warrant in a judgment dated November 4, 2025.

Gupta challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. However, on July 15, 2026, the apex court allowed him to withdraw his special leave petition.

Separately, the ED initiated proceedings in September 2026 to have him declared a Fugitive Economic Offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018.

These proceedings are distinct from the property attachment appeal. While the tribunal’s November 4 order deals with the ED’s power to attach assets under the PMLA, the other proceedings concern Gupta’s legal status and his alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation.

What The Ruling Means For Future PMLA Investigations

The tribunal’s decision reinforces an important enforcement principle under the PMLA: moving alleged proceeds of crime through offshore companies or complex financial structures does not necessarily shield an accused person’s other assets from attachment. Where the original proceeds cannot be reached, the ED can seek equivalent-value property, even if it was acquired before the alleged offence.

For investigators, this offers a route to pursue assets when money has crossed borders or become difficult to trace.