Which PMLA Special Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction in a Multi-State Case?

PMLA Special Court Procedure • Section 44 • Multi-State Financial Trails

A detailed legal guide separating the place of the scheduled offence from the place of alleged money-laundering, and examining prosecution-complaint jurisdiction, multi-State banking trails, property location, statutory committal and transfer objections.

Written and legally reviewed by Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Published: 11 August 2026

Direct answer

The PMLA Special Court is not selected merely by asking where the predicate FIR was registered. The controlling inquiry is ordinarily where the alleged offence of money-laundering was committed. That means identifying the place or places where an accused allegedly acquired, possessed, concealed or used proceeds of crime, projected them as untainted, claimed them as untainted, attempted such activity, knowingly assisted it or knowingly became a party to it.

If relevant Section 3 activities occurred in several States, the laundering offence may have more than one territorial connection. The competent court must nevertheless be a Court of Session validly designated under Section 43 PMLA for the relevant area, case, class or group of cases. A zonal office cannot create court jurisdiction merely by recording an ECIR or filing a complaint at a convenient location.

After the competent PMLA Special Court takes cognizance of the money-laundering complaint, Section 44(1)(c) provides the mechanism through which the connected scheduled-offence case may, on an application by the authorised PMLA authority, be committed from the other court to the PMLA Special Court. The trials remain legally separate and are not converted into one joint trial merely because the same Special Court handles both.

Contents

1. The five-location problem
2. Sections 43 and 44 architecture
3. Section 3 determines the laundering locus
4. Rana Ayyub ruling
5. K.A. Rauf Sherif ruling
6. Which location matters?
7. Multi-State bank trails
8. Property in another State
9. Accused, arrest and witness locations
10. Testing complaint jurisdiction
11. Section 44(1)(c) committal
12. CrPC and BNSS jurisdiction rules
13. When to raise the objection
14. Jurisdiction versus transfer
15. Worked multi-State examples
16. Evidence and pleading checklist
17. Frequently asked questions

1. The five-location problem in a PMLA prosecution

Territorial questions become difficult because a single PMLA investigation may contain several legally different locations. These locations should not be placed into one undifferentiated basket.

1. Place of the scheduled offence: where the alleged cheating, corruption, illegal mining, narcotics offence, forgery, criminal breach of trust or other scheduled criminal activity occurred.
2. Place where proceeds were generated: where property was allegedly derived or obtained as a result of the scheduled criminal activity.
3. Place of subsequent laundering activity: where proceeds were allegedly acquired, possessed, concealed, used, layered, projected or claimed as legitimate.
4. Place connected with the accused: residence, registered office, workplace, place of arrest, place of remand or location of records.
5. Place where property is situated: location of the bank account, cash, real estate, shares, jewellery, vehicle, virtual digital asset or an equivalent-value property attached by ED.

Only after separating these locations can the jurisdictional analysis begin. A complaint often appears territorially persuasive because it repeatedly mentions a State, a zonal office or an FIR registered there. Repetition does not replace the statutory test. The necessary question is whether the complaint connects that State with a legally relevant component of the Section 3 offence.

Common mistake: “The FIR was registered in State A, therefore the PMLA case must also be tried in State A.” The Supreme Court has rejected this as an automatic rule. The scheduled-offence venue and the money-laundering venue must be analysed separately.

2. The statutory architecture of Sections 43 and 44 PMLA

Section 43: designation of the Special Court

Section 43(1) authorises the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, to designate one or more Courts of Session as PMLA Special Courts. A designation may relate to an area, several areas, a particular case, or a class or group of cases.

This creates the first jurisdictional filter. It is not enough to establish that some laundering activity occurred in a district. Counsel must identify the notification that designates the particular Court of Session competent for that district or class of PMLA cases. Court nomenclature, allocation and rosters can change. The operative notification and current judicial allocation should therefore be verified before filing an objection or advising a client.

Section 44(1)(a): place where “the offence” was committed

Section 44(1)(a) provides that the offence punishable under Section 4 and any scheduled offence connected with it shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which “the offence” was committed.

In Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court carefully distinguished the statutory expression “offence” from “scheduled offence”. It held that the relevant use of “the offence” in Section 44(1)(a) refers to the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, the starting point is the location of the Section 3 activity—not merely the location of the predicate crime.

Section 44(1)(b): direct cognizance of the PMLA complaint

The PMLA Special Court may take cognizance of the Section 3 offence upon a written complaint by an authorised authority without the accused first being committed to it by a Magistrate. This reflects the Special Court’s direct complaint jurisdiction.

Direct cognizance does not eliminate territorial limits. The complaint still requires a factual foundation showing why the particular designated Special Court is competent for the alleged laundering offence.

Section 44(1)(c): the scheduled-offence case may follow

If a different court has already taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, the authorised PMLA authority may apply to that court for committal of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court that has taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint. The receiving Special Court continues the scheduled-offence case from the stage at which it is committed.

Explanation to Section 44(1)

The Explanation clarifies that the jurisdiction of the PMLA Special Court during investigation, inquiry or trial is not dependent upon orders passed in the scheduled-offence case. It also clarifies that trial of both sets of offences by the same court is not to be understood as a joint trial.

Architecture in one line: first identify the competent PMLA Special Court by locating the alleged Section 3 activity and checking the Section 43 notification; then use Section 44(1)(c), where applicable, to bring the connected scheduled-offence case before that Special Court.

3. Section 3 determines where the laundering offence occurred

Section 3 is not limited to the final act of showing tainted money as legitimate income. Its language extends to direct or indirect attempts, knowing assistance, knowing participation and actual involvement in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime.

The statutory processes include:

• Acquisition: receiving or obtaining alleged proceeds of crime.
• Possession: holding or exercising control over the alleged proceeds.
• Concealment: hiding the nature, source, ownership, location or movement of the proceeds.
• Use: spending, investing, withdrawing, transferring, pledging or applying the proceeds.
• Projection as untainted: presenting the property as legitimate through books, invoices, investments, declarations or transactions.
• Claiming as untainted: asserting legitimate ownership, source or character.

Each activity can possess a distinct geographical location. Money may be generated through an alleged offence in Bihar, received in a Delhi bank account, transferred through companies in West Bengal, used to purchase property in Maharashtra and shown in accounts prepared in Jharkhand. The jurisdictional analysis must identify which act is attributed to which accused, where that act occurred and what evidence supports the allegation.

The 2019 Explanation to Section 3 also describes the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime as continuing while a person continues to enjoy the proceeds through concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection or claiming. This may support jurisdiction in more than one place, but “continuing offence” should not be used as an empty formula. The complaint should specify the alleged continuing conduct and its territorial link.

4. What the Supreme Court held in Rana Ayyub

In Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SCC 357, the scheduled-offence FIR was registered in Ghaziabad, while the attached beneficiary bank account was situated in Navi Mumbai. The territorial objection was directed against the Ghaziabad Special Court.

The Supreme Court established four important propositions:

1. The PMLA Special Court’s territorial jurisdiction is determined with reference to the place where the money-laundering offence was committed.
2. The connected scheduled-offence case is intended to follow the PMLA case through the Section 44(1)(c) mechanism, rather than the PMLA prosecution automatically following the predicate FIR.
3. Acquisition, possession, concealment and use may take place in different locations, and each relevant location can be a place where the laundering offence was committed.
4. Where the alleged transactions occurred through an online platform and the places of acquisition or receipt were factually disputed, the issue could require evidence and should be raised before the Special Court.

The Court did not hold that the location of every online donor automatically becomes the PMLA trial venue. Its reasoning instead demonstrates why a digital transaction requires evidence-based analysis: who transferred the funds, where instructions originated, where the account was controlled, where receipt or possession occurred, and how the funds were subsequently used.

Practical implication: A jurisdiction objection should not merely state that the beneficiary account was maintained in another State. It should address every alleged Section 3 activity pleaded by ED and demonstrate why none occurred within the selected court’s territorial area.

5. What K.A. Rauf Sherif adds to the law

In K.A. Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 6 SCC 92, the petitioner sought transfer of a PMLA case from Lucknow to Ernakulam. It was argued that most alleged activities, accused persons and witnesses were connected with Kerala, and that the petitioner had initially been remanded there.

The Supreme Court rejected those grounds and reaffirmed that:

• the scheduled-offence FIR’s location does not independently determine PMLA complaint jurisdiction;
• jurisdiction is tested by the place where any alleged Section 3 process or activity took place;
• the residence of most accused persons is not sufficient to secure transfer;
• the fact that most witnesses live in another region does not, by itself, justify transfer;
• initial remand by a court near the place of arrest does not determine the final trial court; and
• a transfer petition is not the proper method merely to “cure” an alleged congenital defect of jurisdiction at the accused’s instance.

The complaint in that case alleged financial transfers connected with Uttar Pradesh. The Court therefore held that the Lucknow PMLA Special Court could not be regarded as lacking territorial jurisdiction.

Important distinction: inconvenience, distance, residence and witness concentration may be relevant to a genuine ends-of-justice transfer request, but they do not replace the Section 3 territorial test. Conversely, an actual absence of territorial nexus should be raised as a jurisdiction objection, not disguised only as a convenience-based transfer request.

6. Which location creates jurisdiction—and which does not?

Multi-State fact	Does it independently determine PMLA Special Court jurisdiction?	Correct legal inquiry
Scheduled-offence FIR registered in State A	No, not automatically	Did a Section 3 laundering activity occur in State A? If not, the FIR’s location alone is insufficient.
ED zonal office records ECIR in State B	No	The ECIR’s administrative location is not a substitute for the place of commission of the laundering offence.
Money received in a bank account in State C	Potentially yes	Receipt may establish acquisition or possession, subject to the complaint and evidence.
Funds transferred onward from State D	Potentially yes	The transfer may constitute use, concealment, layering or assistance, depending on knowledge and role.
False invoices or accounts prepared in State E	Potentially yes	Were those records allegedly used to project or claim proceeds as untainted?
Immovable property purchased in State F	Potentially yes	Was the alleged proceeds-of-crime property acquired, possessed, used, held or projected there?
Independent equivalent-value property attached in State G	Not automatically	Is the property itself connected with a Section 3 activity, or was it attached only as an equivalent-value asset?
Accused resides or has registered office in State H	No, by itself	What laundering act is attributed to that accused, and where did it occur?
Accused arrested and initially remanded in State I	No	Production before the nearest competent court following arrest does not settle trial jurisdiction.
Most witnesses live in State J	No	This may concern convenience but does not create territorial competence.
Electronic instructions sent from State K	Potentially yes	Did the instructions constitute participation, assistance, concealment, use or another element of the Section 3 activity?
Bank’s central server is located in State L	Normally not by that fact alone	Focus on the legally relevant human and transactional acts, not merely technical server architecture.

7. How to test a multi-State bank trail

Bank statements often reveal movement but not the legal character, knowledge or location of the alleged laundering conduct. A reliable territorial analysis requires a transaction-by-transaction jurisdiction ledger.

Field to record	Why it matters
Date, time and UTR/reference number	Fixes the transaction and permits matching with bank, device and communication records.
Originating account and branch	May identify the place from which property was delivered or transferred.
Beneficiary account and branch	May support acquisition or possession at the receiving end.
Person operating or controlling the account	Account ownership and actual control can differ.
Device, IP, login or authorisation location	May identify where transfer instructions or alleged assistance occurred, subject to forensic reliability.
Supporting invoice, agreement or ledger entry	May be relied upon to allege projection or claiming as untainted.
Subsequent withdrawal, investment or purchase	May identify the place of possession, use, concealment or conversion.
Section 3 verb alleged by ED	Forces the complaint to identify whether it alleges acquisition, possession, concealment, use, projection, claiming, attempt or assistance.
Evidence and evidentiary gap	Separates a proved territorial fact from assumption based only on an account address.

Why the beneficiary branch is important but not always exclusive

Receipt into a beneficiary account may establish acquisition or possession. However, digital banking can involve instructions, approval, receipt, control, withdrawal and utilisation in different places. Rana Ayyub illustrates why an online transaction may require factual inquiry rather than a mechanical “bank branch alone” rule.

Layering through several accounts

Where funds pass through accounts in several States, ED may contend that concealment, use or layering occurred at each stage. The defence should test whether the intermediate holder had knowledge, control or any alleged Section 3 role. A passive banking entry is not automatically proof that every account holder knowingly committed money-laundering.

UPI, payment gateways and virtual accounts

The physical location of a payment processor’s server should not be treated as conclusive. Relevant facts may include merchant onboarding, settlement-account location, beneficiary control, place from which withdrawal instructions were sent, underlying invoices and the place where the funds were actually applied.

Cash withdrawal after electronic receipt

If money is received in State A and withdrawn in State B, the prosecution may allege acquisition or possession in State A and use or concealment in State B. The defence must therefore avoid presenting one transaction location as the only possible forum without addressing the subsequent alleged activity.

8. Does the location of attached property determine the Special Court?

Property location can be relevant, but its significance depends on the legal character attributed to the property.

Property alleged to be direct proceeds of crime

If the prosecution alleges that a particular property was directly derived or obtained from criminal activity and that it was acquired, possessed, concealed, held or used in a particular State, that State may have a genuine territorial connection with the Section 3 offence.

Property purchased by using alleged proceeds

The purchase and possession of immovable property, securities, jewellery or another asset may be alleged as acquisition or use. Registration records, payment instruments, possession documents, loan records and accounting treatment can become jurisdictionally relevant.

Equivalent-value property

PMLA’s definition of proceeds of crime and its attachment framework can extend to value-equivalent property in specified circumstances. But the mere location of an equivalent-value asset should not automatically be treated as the location where laundering occurred. The prosecution must still identify the Section 3 activity connected with the selected forum.

Attachment proceedings and criminal trial are different tracks

Provisional attachment, adjudication, possession and appellate proceedings have their own statutory architecture. The place from which an attachment order was issued, the location of the Adjudicating Authority or the place where attached property stands does not automatically fix the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal prosecution complaint.

Defence question: Is ED relying upon this property as actual alleged proceeds that were acquired, possessed, concealed or used in the forum State, or only as an attachable equivalent-value asset located there? The answer can materially change the jurisdiction analysis.

9. Residence of accused, place of arrest and witness convenience

Residence of the accused

The fact that an accused resides in a particular State does not, by itself, make that State the proper venue for a PMLA complaint. K.A. Rauf Sherif rejected the argument that transfer should follow because most accused resided in Kerala.

Residence may become evidentially relevant if the complaint alleges that the accused possessed, concealed, used or controlled proceeds from that residence. The relevant fact is the alleged laundering act—not the postal address in isolation.

Registered office of a company

A company’s registered office does not automatically determine where its alleged laundering activity occurred. The court should examine the place of board decisions, banking control, invoice generation, accounting entries, asset acquisition and instructions by responsible officers.

Place of arrest or initial remand

An accused arrested outside the eventual trial State may lawfully be produced before the nearest competent court for transit or remand purposes. As explained in K.A. Rauf Sherif, this does not determine where the prosecution complaint must ultimately be tried.

Location of witnesses

A concentration of witnesses in another State may create practical hardship, but it does not itself negate a court’s territorial competence. Modern criminal procedure also permits appropriate use of commissions, electronic processes and video-conferencing, subject to the court’s directions and applicable rules.

10. A twelve-step test for prosecution-complaint jurisdiction

1 Identify the precise Section 3 allegation.
Do not begin with the predicate FIR. Extract the alleged laundering process attributed to each accused. 2 Identify the proceeds of crime.
Record the property allegedly derived or obtained and distinguish it from equivalent-value property. 3 Separate generation from laundering.
The place where proceeds were generated may overlap with, but is not necessarily identical to, later laundering locations. 4 Map every transaction.
Prepare a chronological flow from origin to receipt, onward transfer, withdrawal, investment and accounting treatment. 5 Assign a location to every alleged act.
Identify where acquisition, possession, concealment, use, projection, claiming, attempt or assistance allegedly occurred. 6 Map each accused separately.
Do not assume that one accused’s location automatically proves another accused’s territorial connection. 7 Test the complaint’s pleaded facts.
Find the paragraphs that connect the selected Special Court’s area with the Section 3 conduct. 8 Separate evidence from labels.
Words such as “layering”, “conspiracy” or “continuing offence” require supporting transactional facts. 9 Apply the territorial-procedure rules.
Consider ordinary place, uncertain place, partial commission, continuing offence, several acts and consequences. 10 Verify the Section 43 notification.
Confirm which Sessions Court is designated for the area and case category. 11 Check parallel cognizance.
Record where the scheduled-offence court and any other PMLA complaint have taken cognizance. 12 Select the correct remedy.
Jurisdiction objection, Section 44 committal, revision, writ remedy and transfer are legally distinct routes. A bare assertion is insufficient: A paragraph stating that “part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction” should be tested against the complaint’s actual transaction dates, accounts, persons, acts and supporting documents.

11. Section 44(1)(c): how the scheduled-offence case follows the PMLA case

Section 44(1)(c) addresses the situation in which one court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence while a different PMLA Special Court has taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint.

The statutory sequence is:

1. The authorised authority files the PMLA prosecution complaint before the territorially competent Special Court.
2. The PMLA Special Court takes cognizance under Section 44(1)(b).
3. The authorised PMLA authority applies to the court handling the scheduled offence.
4. Upon the statutory conditions being satisfied, the scheduled-offence court commits that case to the PMLA Special Court.
5. The receiving Special Court continues the scheduled-offence proceeding from the stage at which it was committed.
6. The scheduled-offence trial and PMLA trial remain distinct; handling both does not convert them into a joint trial.

The Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub described the PMLA Special Court as having primacy under this architecture. The Jharkhand High Court applied this approach in Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Jharkhand, decided on 21 March 2025, while examining rejection of an ED application under Section 44(1)(c).

Drafting point: A Section 44(1)(c) application should identify the prosecution complaint, cognizance order, connected scheduled offence, factual connection, present procedural stage and the Section 43 designation of the receiving court. “Same transaction” should be demonstrated through records, not merely asserted.

12. How the CrPC and BNSS territorial rules fit into PMLA

Sections 46 and 65 PMLA make the general criminal-procedure framework applicable to Special Court proceedings and other PMLA processes, except where inconsistent with the special statute. Section 44 contains a non-obstante clause, while Section 71 gives PMLA overriding effect in the event of inconsistency.

The Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub read Section 44 together with CrPC Sections 177–184. Following the commencement of BNSS on 1 July 2024, the corresponding territorial provisions are principally BNSS Sections 197–204:

Territorial principle	CrPC provision	BNSS provision	Possible PMLA relevance
Ordinary place where offence was committed	Section 177	Section 197	Starting rule, subject to Section 44 PMLA.
Uncertain place, partial commission, continuing offence or several acts	Section 178	Section 198	Important where laundering conduct spans several States.
Act done in one place and consequence ensuing elsewhere	Section 179	Section 199	May be relevant to transfer instructions, receipt, withdrawal or asset conversion.
Act that is an offence because of its relation to another offence	Section 180	Section 200	Must be applied carefully with the independent structure of Section 3 PMLA.
Certain property-related offences	Section 181	Section 201	Potentially relevant to the underlying scheduled offence, depending on its nature.
Electronic communications and cheating-related venue	Section 182	Section 202	Relevant primarily to applicable predicate offences and electronic transaction evidence.
Offences triable together	Section 184	Section 204	Subject to Sections 43–44 PMLA and the rule that the two trials are not automatically a joint trial.
High Court decision where courts have taken cognizance and venue is disputed	Section 186	Section 206	May become relevant in appropriate competing-cognizance situations.
Proceedings in the wrong place	Section 462	Section 508	A later finding is not set aside merely for wrong venue unless the error caused a failure of justice.

The applicable procedural citation must be selected after examining the transition and savings rule in Section 531 BNSS. It is unsafe to decide the CrPC/BNSS question solely from the date of the alleged transaction. Pending investigations, inquiries, trials, applications and appeals may engage different procedural clocks.

In transitional pleadings, counsel may state the corresponding CrPC and BNSS provisions, identify why one applies and preserve the alternative submission. The substantive territorial principle explained in Rana Ayyub remains central because the corresponding ordinary-place and multi-area rules have substantially been carried forward.

13. When should a territorial objection be raised?

The safest course is to raise the objection at the first meaningful opportunity after the accused receives the prosecution complaint and cognizance material. Delay may make it harder to demonstrate prejudice and may invite the argument that the objection is tactical.

Before or immediately after appearance

Counsel should obtain the prosecution complaint, cognizance order, relied-upon documents and the Section 43 notification. A preliminary application can identify the absence of any pleaded Section 3 act within the court’s territorial area.

At discharge or consideration of charge

Where the jurisdictional defect is apparent from the complaint and relied-upon documents, it should be specifically preserved in written submissions. The objection should be kept distinct from arguments on whether proceeds of crime or knowledge are proved.

Where the issue requires evidence

Rana Ayyub recognises that territorial jurisdiction may depend upon evidence. If the prosecution alleges virtual acquisition, remote account operation or acts in several States, the court may need banking and digital evidence before deciding the factual locus conclusively.

After trial or in appeal

CrPC Section 462 and BNSS Section 508 make a late challenge materially harder. A finding, sentence or order is not set aside merely because proceedings occurred in the wrong local area unless the error actually occasioned a failure of justice.

Therefore, an appellate objection should explain specific prejudice: inability to obtain material witnesses, denial of process, lost or inaccessible records, disruption of cross-examination, inconsistent court control, or another concrete effect on the fairness of the proceeding. Mere inconvenience is ordinarily insufficient.

Best practice: raise the objection early, support it with a State-wise transaction chart and bank records, seek a reasoned decision, and continue complying with court directions unless proceedings are stayed by a competent court.

14. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory committal and transfer are different remedies

Remedy	Purpose	Who ordinarily invokes it?	Key limitation
Territorial-jurisdiction objection before the PMLA Special Court	Challenges whether the complaint discloses a Section 3 nexus with that court’s area.	Accused or affected party	May require evidence; a writ court may decline to decide disputed facts.
Section 44(1)(c) PMLA committal	Brings the connected scheduled-offence case to the PMLA Special Court.	Authority authorised to file the PMLA complaint	It is not a general accused-controlled transfer provision.
Transfer within one High Court’s supervisory territory	Transfer for fair trial, legal difficulty or ends of justice.	Party, lower court report or High Court where permitted	CrPC Section 407 or BNSS Section 447 does not eliminate the need for a competent transferee court.
Inter-State transfer by the Supreme Court	Transfers a criminal case between courts subordinate to different High Courts where expedient for the ends of justice.	Attorney-General or interested party, subject to the provision	CrPC Section 406 or BNSS Section 446 is discretionary; jurisdictional defect alone is not automatically a transfer ground.
Revision, inherent or constitutional challenge	Challenges an adverse jurisdiction order in an appropriate case.	Aggrieved party	Maintainability, interlocutory-order restrictions, alternate remedy and factual disputes must be examined.

In K.A. Rauf Sherif, the Supreme Court cautioned that an alleged lack of jurisdiction cannot simply be used as a reason to transfer the case at the accused’s instance. The Court described an assumed congenital jurisdictional defect as something that could enure to the accused’s benefit rather than being cured through transfer to the accused’s detriment.

Accordingly, the relief must match the grievance. If the selected court has no Section 3 connection, challenge its territorial competence. If the court is competent but the trial cannot fairly proceed there for independent reasons, consider the applicable transfer provision. If the problem is that the scheduled-offence case remains before another court, examine Section 44(1)(c).

15. Worked multi-State jurisdiction examples

Scenario A: Fraud in Bihar, beneficiary account in Delhi

The scheduled-offence FIR alleges cheating in Patna. The alleged proceeds are credited to a Delhi account controlled and operated by the accused, with no later transaction in Bihar.

Likely analysis: Patna is the scheduled-offence location, while Delhi may be the place of acquisition or possession. The PMLA complaint cannot rely only on the Patna FIR; it must show a Section 3 act within the selected PMLA forum. If the competent Delhi Special Court takes cognizance, the predicate proceeding may become subject to Section 44(1)(c).

Scenario B: Receipt in Delhi, investment in Kolkata

Money is received in Delhi, transferred to a company in Kolkata and used there to purchase securities that are shown as legitimate investment income.

Likely analysis: Delhi may be connected with acquisition or possession; Kolkata may be connected with use, concealment or projection. More than one territorially relevant forum may exist. The complaint must state why the selected court is designated and connected with the alleged acts.

Scenario C: Accused lives in Mumbai but performs no alleged act there

The accused resides in Mumbai, but the complaint alleges that all account control, transfers, invoicing and investment occurred in Ranchi and Delhi.

Likely analysis: Mumbai residence alone does not create PMLA trial jurisdiction. It may become relevant only if possession, concealment, use or another laundering act is alleged there.

Scenario D: Equivalent-value house attached in Bhopal

ED alleges that the original proceeds are unavailable and attaches an independently acquired house in Bhopal as an equivalent-value asset. No laundering act concerning that house is alleged.

Likely analysis: The property’s physical location may be relevant to attachment and possession procedures, but it should not automatically create Bhopal criminal-trial jurisdiction. The complaint must identify a Section 3 nexus.

Scenario E: Cyber-fraud proceeds cross six mule accounts

The victim transfers money from Uttar Pradesh. Funds pass through accounts in Haryana, Rajasthan and Assam, are withdrawn in West Bengal and ultimately converted into virtual digital assets through an exchange account controlled from Delhi.

Likely analysis: Several places may be connected with acquisition, possession, concealment and use. However, each account holder’s knowledge and role must be separately examined. The mere passage of funds through an account does not by itself establish conscious laundering by its holder.

Scenario F: ECIR in Delhi, all laundering acts alleged in Chennai

A Delhi ED unit records the ECIR and conducts part of the investigation, but the complaint alleges that receipt, possession, invoicing, withdrawal and investment all occurred in Chennai.

Likely analysis: The administrative location of the ED unit does not manufacture territorial jurisdiction. Unless a relevant Section 3 act is pleaded within Delhi, the complaint’s filing there is open to a territorial challenge.

16. Evidence pack for a territorial-jurisdiction application

A useful application should be supported by an organised jurisdiction record rather than general assertions.

Core court documents

• Complete prosecution complaint and all supplementary complaints.
• Cognizance order and summoning order.
• ECIR particulars available from the court record.
• Scheduled-offence FIR, charge-sheet or complaint.
• Scheduled-offence cognizance and charge orders.
• Section 43 notification designating the selected Special Court.
• Any Section 44(1)(c) application and orders passed on it.

Financial and digital material

• Certified or authenticated bank statements.
• Account-opening forms and branch details.
• UTR numbers, remittance instructions and settlement reports.
• Internet-banking login and authorisation records, where lawfully available.
• Payment-gateway, merchant and nodal-account statements.
• Cash withdrawal records and CCTV preservation requests.
• Ledger, invoice, GST, TDS and financial-statement entries relied upon as projection.
• Property purchase documents and payment schedules.
• Device extraction reports, hash values and relevant communication records.

Three charts that should accompany the application

1. State-wise event chart: date, event, person, location, evidence and alleged legal effect.
2. Transaction-flow chart: origin account, intermediate accounts, destination, withdrawals and asset purchases.
3. Accused-role chart: alleged act, knowledge allegation, controlling evidence and territorial location for each accused.

Suggested jurisdiction issues for written submissions

1. Whether the prosecution complaint pleads any specific process or activity under Section 3 within the territorial area of the selected Special Court.
2. Whether the complaint relies only on the place of registration of the scheduled-offence FIR or ECIR.
3. Whether the alleged bank receipt, possession, control, withdrawal, investment or projection occurred outside the court’s area.
4. Whether the property located within the area is actual alleged proceeds, property involved in laundering or merely an equivalent-value asset.
5. Whether the Section 43 notification designates the court for the relevant area and case category.
6. Whether the complaint improperly treats the residence, arrest or remand of an accused as the jurisdictional foundation.
7. Whether a factual inquiry is necessary and what evidence must be produced before the issue can be decided.
8. Whether continuation before the selected forum has caused or is likely to cause identifiable prejudice or failure of justice.

17. Defence strategy and prosecution response

Defence strategy

<

Related Delhi legal guides

PMLA proceedings in Delhi · Enforcement Directorate matters · Rouse Avenue PMLA Special Court

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