New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has, for the first time, claimed that Rohan Choksi, the son of fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi, was “actively” involved in the money laundering offences perpetrated alongside his father. This development comes as part of ongoing proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (ATFP)in Delhi, where the ED has sought to justify the attachment of properties in Rohan Choksi’s name, linking them to the multi-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.

The allegations were raised during a hearing related to the attachment of a property in Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai, which Rohan Choksi contends belongs to a family trust established decades ago. According to the ED, the property was deliberately transferred in Rohan’s name in 2013 by Mehul Choksi, as part of a premeditated effort to shield assets from potential seizure in case the father’s fraudulent activities came to light. The agency argued that this was a calculated move designed to evade law enforcement, claiming that Rohan was complicit in these schemes.

The ED’s legal team submitted before the ATFP that “all the facts and evidence on record clearly point towards the direction that Rohan Choksi was also actively involved along with his father Mehul Choksi for commission of the offence of money laundering, after the commission of the predicate offence.” The agency further emphasized that, even if a property was originally acquired in 1994, its present value can be treated as attachable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) if it was subsequently used or transferred in connection with proceeds of crime.

Rohan Choksi, however, has never been formally named in any FIR or charge sheet filed by either the ED or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Sources close to the Choksi family, who requested anonymity, stated that Rohan has long separated his business dealings from his father’s operations and has limited or no contact with Mehul Choksi. His current location remains unknown, though insiders say he is not a wanted person under any ongoing investigation.

The controversy over Rohan’s property traces back to 2018, when the ED had attached a flat in Dadar East, Mumbai, linked to Rohan Mercantile Pvt Ltd, as well as the Walkeshwar Road flat in Rohan’s personal name. While an adjudicating authority (AA) under PMLA had confirmed the attachment of the Dadar East property, it had not included the Walkeshwar property in its order. Following this, Rohan approached ATFP questioning the continuation of the attachment.

Rohan argued that the Walkeshwar property was purchased by a family trust in June 1994, long before PMLA was enacted, and was only transferred in his name in November 2013. He asserted that the property had no connection to the alleged predicate offence, which took place between 2015 and 2017, and pointed out that he has never been implicated in any formal investigation. “The property was rightly not confirmed by the AA,” Rohan’s legal counsel Vijay Aggarwalargued. He added that the trust had been established in 1993, at a time when the Prevention of Money Laundering Act did not exist.

In contrast, the ED contended that the transfer of the property was part of an intentional scheme orchestrated by Mehul Choksi to anticipate attachment orders in the event that his fraud was detected. According to the agency, such deliberate structuring of asset transfers implicates beneficiaries like Rohan, who must therefore be considered actively involved in the laundering process.

The ongoing legal tussle reflects the broader scrutiny faced by the Choksi family following the discovery of the PNB scam, one of India’s largest banking frauds, which involved billions of rupees in fraudulent letters of undertaking. Mehul Choksi, the principal accused, fled India in 2017 and has since moved across multiple countries, including the United States, Antigua and Barbuda, and Belgium. He was arrested in Antwerp on April 11, 2025, following an extradition request by the CBI, and currently remains in prison pending further legal proceedings.

The ED has aggressively pursued the attachment of properties and assets linked to Mehul Choksi, his companies, and associates, totaling ₹2,565 crore. This includes residential flats, commercial spaces, and properties owned via corporate entities or family trusts. In its submissions before ATFP, the ED insisted that even assets formally held by family members could be considered proceeds of crime if transferred in anticipation of detection, thus implicating the beneficiaries in the money laundering offences.

Responding to the ED’s allegations, Rohan Choksi’s lawyer argued that attaching property without a direct link to the proceeds of crime is legally unsustainable and amounts to malice in law. Aggarwal said, “The scope of investigation cannot be extended unnecessarily to children and spouses. Agencies must respect their legal boundaries. The statutory limit of 180 days for attachment has already expired, and the matter cannot be remanded back.”

Legal experts suggest that the case raises complex issues about the reach of PMLA, especially concerning properties held through family trusts or nominally by relatives of accused individuals. “The law allows authorities to treat property as proceeds of crime if it can be linked to illicit funds, but it must be demonstrated with clear evidence,” said Dr. Ramesh Pillai, a criminal law scholar. “Simply being a beneficiary of a trust or receiving property from a parent does not automatically constitute active involvement in a predicate offence. Courts have to examine intent, knowledge, and participation.”

The case is also significant because it marks the ED’s first formal claim that Rohan Choksi had active involvement in the laundering process alongside Mehul Choksi. While earlier proceedings focused solely on Mehul Choksi and his immediate corporate network, the agency’s extension of liability to his son could broaden the scope of attachment and forfeiture proceedings under PMLA.

The ATFP, after reviewing submissions from both sides, referred the matter back to the adjudicating authority (AA)for reconsideration, instructing the inclusion of the Walkeshwar Road property in its earlier 2018 attachment order. The tribunal’s decision indicates that the attachment framework under PMLA may be interpreted broadly, encompassing transfers made to relatives if there is evidence of anticipatory or strategic movement of assets to evade enforcement action.

Observers note that the ruling could have far-reaching implications for family-owned businesses and trusts in India, particularly in cases where properties are transferred within families prior to the detection of financial fraud. The case highlights the tension between asset protection mechanisms, family trust structures, and anti-money laundering laws, which authorities have increasingly relied upon in high-profile cases.

Meanwhile, Rohan Choksi remains outside the immediate jurisdiction of Indian authorities, with his location unknown, and has not been formally charged in any criminal proceedings. However, the ED’s claims before ATFP suggest that any properties under his name could now face attachment and forfeiture, pending adjudication. The ongoing proceedings underscore the protracted nature of financial crime investigations in India, particularly in cases involving cross-border elements and complex asset structures.

As the case unfolds, it is expected to set precedents for how properties held by family members of accused individuals are treated under PMLA, and whether courts will extend liability to beneficiaries in cases of anticipatory transfers. Legal analysts say that the matter also underscores the challenges faced by enforcement agencies in tracing illicit funds and assets in high-value, multi-jurisdictional fraud cases.

In summary, the ED’s recent submission before the ATFP signals a shift in strategy, seeking to implicate Mehul Choksi’s son Rohan in money laundering allegations and justify the attachment of properties previously considered outside the scope of investigation. While Rohan’s lawyers continue to assert that he has no involvement in the alleged fraud, the case remains under active judicial scrutiny, and the ATFP’s ruling could have implications for asset recovery efforts and the interpretation of PMLA in family-linked financial offences.