Pune: PMLA Tribunal Quashes Major ED Attachments Against Avinash Bhosale in Yes Bank-DHFL Case; Slams Agency for “Irrational” Probe

Pune/New Delhi, 17th April 2026: In a major setback for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has largely overturned the provisional attachment of properties belonging to prominent builder Avinash Bhosale and his entities in connection with the Yes Bank-DHFL money laundering probe.

The Tribunal, headed by Chairman Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Member G.C. Mishra, quashed attachments worth nearly ₹140 crore, retaining only ₹25 crore of the total ₹164.67 crore initially frozen by the agency. In a sharply worded order dated April 1, 2026, the Tribunal criticized the ED for acting “without jurisdiction” and relying on “imagination” by linking legitimate commercial agreements signed years before the alleged scam to the laundering of illicit funds.

Background of the Yes Bank-DHFL Scam
The underlying case stems from a March 2020 CBI FIR alleging that between April and June 2018, Yes Bank, under Rana Kapoor, invested ₹3,700 crore in short-term debentures of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL). In exchange, DHFL’s Kapil Wadhawan allegedly paid a ₹600 crore kickback to Kapoor’s family.

The ED’s money laundering probe alleged that Wadhawan subsequently diverted ₹2,317 crore of these funds to entities controlled by builder Sanjay Chhabria for a real estate project (“Avenue-54” in Santacruz). The agency further claimed that Chhabria conspired with Avinash Bhosale to divert these funds into Bhosale’s companies, leading to the attachment of Bhosale’s properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Tribunal Rejects “Imaginary” Layering Claims
The ED had attached Bhosale’s assets based on three distinct financial transactions. The Tribunal struck down the first two, observing that the agency stretched its jurisdiction to criminalize standard business dealings:

1. The ₹237.50 Crore Loan Agreement (2014): The ED claimed ₹67.85 crore as “proceeds of crime” from a 2014 loan agreement between Bhosale’s Nibodh Realty LLP and Chhabria’s entity. The ED argued that the 300% return on this loan was commercially irrational and designed as a future mechanism to layer illicit funds.

Tribunal’s Ruling: The Tribunal rubbished this claim, noting the agreement was signed four years before the 2018 Yes Bank-DHFL scam. The bench stated it was impossible for the parties to anticipate the 2018 crime and structure a layering mechanism in 2014. The Tribunal deemed the ED’s logic “wholly irrational and without jurisdiction.”

2. The ₹71.82 Crore Consultancy Fee (2017): The ED attached ₹71.82 crore paid to Bhosale’s entities by DHFL, labeling it a “bogus” consultancy fee for projects like Avenue-54 and One Mahalaxmi. The agency relied heavily on a statement from a DHFL executive claiming no actual services were rendered.
Tribunal’s Ruling: The Tribunal noted that these consultancy and brokerage agreements were executed in 2017, prior to the 2018 predicate offense. It observed that Bhosale had provided invoices and detailed evidence of architectural, engineering, and project cost advisory services. The bench ruled the ED failed to provide foundational facts to prove these pre-crime payments were intended to layer proceeds of a crime that had not yet occurred.

The ₹25 Crore Attachment Upheld
The Tribunal did, however, find substance in the ED’s attachment regarding a third transaction involving the sale of Abil Dairy LLP.
In 2016, an agreement was struck to sell the dairy to Chhabria for ₹75 crore, with an initial ₹25 crore advance paid. A subsequent payment of ₹25 crore was made three years later, in February 2019, using post-scam funds from Chhabria. Crucially, the dairy was never actually transferred to Chhabria and remained with Bhosale.

Rejecting Bhosale’s argument that the 2019 payment was an adjustment against other transactions, the Tribunal found the 3-year delay and lack of asset transfer highly suspicious. It upheld the attachment to the tune of ₹25 crore.

What Remains Attached?
To satisfy the upheld ₹25 crore attachment, the Tribunal ordered the continued provisional attachment of the following specific properties:
A 6,143.71 sq. meter land parcel in Pune valued at ₹14.65 crore (held by M/s Samit Realty Pvt. Ltd.).
A portion of a 20,200 sq. meter land parcel in Nagpur valued at ₹15.52 crore (held by Mrs. Gauri Avinash Bhosale) to cover the remaining balance.

All other properties of the appellants targeted by the ED’s initial ₹164.67 crore attachment have been ordered released.