Presumptions Concerning Records & Property under Section 22 PMLA

ED found a diary, ledger, agreement, loose sheet, spreadsheet or digital record—but what exactly does Section 22 allow to be presumed, and what still has to be proved?

Research and professional guidance by

Legally reviewed and updated: 14 August 2026

Direct Answer: Section 22 Creates Strong Presumptions—but It Does Not Convert Every Seized Paper into Conclusive Proof of Money-Laundering

Section 22 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is an evidentiary provision of considerable practical importance.

Where the statutory conditions are attracted, it permits presumptions concerning:

• who a record or property belongs to;
• the truth of the contents of a record;
• signature;
• handwriting;
• execution;
• attestation.

That can materially change the evidentiary burden in a PMLA proceeding.

But the correct defence question is not:

“Can ED rely on this document?”

The better question is:

“Precisely what fact does Section 22 permit to be presumed—and what additional proposition is ED attempting to infer from that fact?”

Those two questions are often very different.

The Section 22 Evidence Ladder

RECORD / PROPERTY
FOUND / PRODUCED / SEIZED / FROZEN
                ↓
SECTION 22 TRIGGER?
                ↓
PRESUMPTION OF BELONGING
                ↓
PRESUMPTION ABOUT CONTENTS
                ↓
SIGNATURE / HANDWRITING /
EXECUTION / ATTESTATION
                ↓
BUT THEN ASK:
                ↓
WHAT DOES THE ENTRY ACTUALLY MEAN?
                ↓
WHO DOES THE CODE / INITIAL REFER TO?
                ↓
DID THE TRANSACTION ACTUALLY OCCUR
IN THE WAY ED ALLEGES?
                ↓
IS THE MONEY PROCEEDS OF CRIME?
                ↓
WHAT IS THIS PERSON'S SECTION 3 ROLE?
                ↓
KNOWLEDGE / ASSISTANCE /
POSSESSION / ACQUISITION / USE?

Section 22 is therefore an evidentiary starting point—not a substitute for identifying the ingredients of the PMLA offence.

When Does Section 22(1) Apply?

The current provision is broader than material merely recovered during an ED search.

Its statutory trigger can include a record or property:

• found in a person's possession or control during survey;
• found during search;
• produced by a person;
• resumed or seized from custody or control;
• frozen under the PMLA;
• frozen under another law for the time being in force.

Therefore the first defence exercise is:

IDENTIFY THE EXACT CUSTODY / CONTROL EVENT THAT ED SAYS ATTRACTS SECTION 22.

Presumption No. 1: The Record or Property Belongs to the Person

Where Section 22 applies, the statute creates a presumption that the record or property belongs to the relevant person connected with its possession or control.

This can matter where ED finds:

• a diary in a bedroom;
• a ledger in an office cabin;
• documents in a locker;
• a hard disk in a desk;
• property in physical custody;
• a corporate file produced by a director;
• a record produced pursuant to summons.

But “belonging” should not automatically be converted into a conclusion concerning authorship.

Possession Is Not the Same as Authorship

Consider a company office.

A director's cabin may contain:

• accounts prepared by the accountant;
• files prepared by the legal department;
• vendor documents;
• board papers;
• employee-maintained registers;
• photocopies received from another company.

A record may be in one person's possession while having been written or prepared by another.

That is why Section 22 itself separately deals with handwriting and signature.

The defence should therefore split the issue:

WHO POSSESSED IT?
        ≠
WHO WROTE IT?
        ≠
WHO SIGNED IT?
        ≠
WHO PREPARED THE DATA?
        ≠
WHO AUTHORISED THE TRANSACTION?

How to Rebut the “Belongs to the Person” Presumption

The response should be documentary.

Useful evidence may include:

• company asset register;
• device purchase invoice;
• employee allocation records;
• office seating/custody chart;
• shared-cabinet evidence;
• server-access matrix;
• document-management-system logs;
• bailment or agency documents;
• email showing receipt from another person;
• covering letter identifying the actual owner;
• inventory showing where and how the document was recovered.

A bare statement that:

“That document was not mine”

is far weaker than evidence demonstrating exactly whose document it was and why it happened to be present there.

Presumption No. 2: Contents of the Record Are True

This is one of the strongest parts of Section 22.

The statute creates a presumption concerning the truth of the contents of qualifying records.

Therefore a defence should not casually proceed on the assumption that ED must start from zero and independently prove every sentence appearing in every seized record.

But the phrase “contents are true” should still be analytically separated from the prosecution's interpretation of those contents.

Truth of Contents versus Meaning of Contents

Suppose a diary contains the entry:

12/09
AK – 25
DL

Related Delhi legal guides

PMLA provisional attachment · Adjudicating Authority procedure · PMLA Appellate Tribunal

Official starting points

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 — India Code · Directorate of Enforcement — official website

Document-first assessment

Start with the latest legal instrument and next deadline

Organise the current summons or order, case identifiers, a dated chronology and the transaction or property record before seeking case-specific advice.

Prepare for consultation