R & D Law Chambers LLP defends individuals, directors and businesses in prosecutions by the Enforcement Directorate, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and customs authorities, GST authorities, and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The practice combines criminal defence with an international tax, GST and customs litigation practice, because in these cases the tax question and the criminal question are the same question.
Agency prosecutions are a different discipline from ordinary criminal defence. There is no FIR. The investigators are not police, so statements made to them are admissible. Reverse burdens attach at defined points. Bail is governed by statutory twin conditions rather than ordinary bail principles. And a parallel civil track of provisional attachment and adjudication can freeze business assets while the criminal case is still young. The firm’s criminal practice combines urgency with structure: it is anchored by a Senior Partner who served as a Magistrate in the 1980s and has decades of experience in criminal law, customs, excise and director liability matters before the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court of India, and is led day to day by a dual qualified practice head whose international tax, GST and customs litigation work gives the firm unusual reach in matters where fiscal and criminal proceedings run together. The law in this field is evolving: as at the date of this page, review petitions against Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) on the supply of the ECIR and the reverse burden of proof are pending before the Supreme Court, and the position on any given proposition should be re verified at the time of any specific matter.
Index of Topics
1. Who We Act For
2. Response to Summonses under Section 50 PMLA, Section 108 Customs and Section 70 GST
3. Bail and Anticipatory Bail under Section 45 PMLA
4. Challenge to Section 19 PMLA Arrests
5. Customs and GST Prosecutions: Arrest, Bail and Anticipatory Bail after Radhika Agarwal
6. SFIO and Section 447 of the Companies Act: Serious Fraud Defence
7. The Parallel Property Track: Section 5 Attachment and Adjudication
8. Quashing and Constitutional Challenges in Agency Prosecutions
9. FEMA, FEOA and Black Money Act: Adjacent Practice
10. How We Work and Urgent Matters
11. Why R & D Law Chambers
12. Key Principles at a Glance
13. Frequently Asked Questions
14. Related Services and Contact
1. Who We Act For
Individuals and directors summoned by an agency. A summons has arrived from the ED under Section 50 of the PMLA, from customs or DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act, or from GST officers under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The client is required to appear and to give a statement on oath. The immediate questions are what the summons actually seeks, how to respond without making the position worse, and what the statement, once given, will do to the case later. We take these matters from the moment the summons is received, through the appearance and the record that results.
Persons and businesses facing arrest, or already arrested, by ED, DRI, customs or GST authorities. The window in which an arrest can be lawfully prevented, or lawfully challenged, is narrow and well defined. We appear in anticipatory bail applications, in remand hearings, in bail applications on the merits under Section 45 PMLA or on ordinary principles under the Customs and GST Acts, and in challenges to arrests that were not made in accordance with the safeguards the Supreme Court has now settled across statutes.
Businesses whose property has been provisionally attached under Section 5 PMLA. Attachment freezes assets while the criminal case is still young, and the adjudication track before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal runs on its own timeline. Defending only the criminal side loses the business. We coordinate both tracks so the stand taken in adjudication does not hand the prosecution admissions at the bail stage, and vice versa.
2. Response to Summonses under Section 50 PMLA, Section 108 Customs and Section 70 GST
We advise on and manage responses to summonses under Section 50 of the PMLA, Section 108 of the Customs Act and Section 70 of the CGST Act: written pre appearance correspondence, preparation of the client, documentation of every attendance, and, in appropriate cases, challenge to a summons that is mala fide or without jurisdiction.
Attendance is compulsory and statements are recorded on oath. Because the recording officers are not police officers, the statutory bar on confessions to police does not apply, and the statements are admissible in evidence: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022 INSC 757) for the ED; Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 INSC 272) for customs and GST officers. A person summoned is not, at that stage, an accused, so the constitutional privilege under Article 20(3) has not yet attached. Two limits temper the position and are worth knowing at this stage. In Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court held that a Section 50 statement recorded while the maker is in custody is not voluntary and cannot be used, because custody changes the constitutional character of the statement. And in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Court held that once the Special Court has taken cognizance of the complaint, the ED can no longer arrest under Section 19, and an accused who appears in answer to the court’s summons is not required to satisfy the Section 45 twin conditions.
Our method mirrors the discipline we bring to police notices in ordinary criminal matters, adapted for the higher stakes here. Before appearance, we put the response on the record in writing: we acknowledge the summons and politely seek from the officer the specific documents required and the aspects on which the client’s explanation is needed, so that the client can come prepared to genuinely assist the enquiry, and we request that a reasonable time be granted once that information is conveyed. Where the client can meaningfully do so, a written explanation with supporting documents is submitted by post, expressly on his understanding of the matter and without prejudice, so that his position enters the record in his own words with his own documents rather than as a statement recorded in someone else’s. Reconstructing the underlying transactions from documents before the appearance is not caution; it is the defence, because an inaccurate answer given from memory becomes concealment later, while a considered answer given after verification is simply the truth. Every attendance is documented contemporaneously: date, duration, officers present, subjects covered, documents supplied. And the rule the firm states on every criminal page applies with maximum force here, where the stakes are highest: any suggestion, from whatever quarter, that the matter can be resolved outside the legal process is declined and recorded. The lawful exits from an agency investigation are adjudication, compounding where the statute permits it, bail, quashing, and acquittal. Anything else may itself constitute a separate offence and closes nothing.
Illustrative matter pattern: An officer of a company receives an ED summons in a matter connected to an alleged scheduled offence involving a business counterparty. A courteous pre appearance letter identifies the documents and the aspects on which explanation is sought, a written response goes on the record by post without prejudice with reconciled ledgers and correspondence, and the appearance that follows is confined to the areas already explained. The client’s position enters the record in his own words and forms the foundation of the challenge to any subsequent action.
3. Bail and Anticipatory Bail under Section 45 PMLA
We appear in bail and anticipatory bail applications under the PMLA before the Special Court and the Gujarat High Court, on the merits under Section 45, under the statutory proviso where the applicant falls within it, and on the Article 21 delay route the Supreme Court has now integrated with Section 45.
Section 45 permits release only where the Public Prosecutor is heard and the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These twin conditions apply to anticipatory bail applications as well: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) expressly so held. The statutory proviso permits the Special Court to release, without those conditions, a person under sixteen, a woman, a person who is sick or infirm, or a person accused of laundering less than one crore rupees, and the woman limb was recently confirmed to be unqualified: Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024). The 2024 corrections carry equal weight in our applications. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) and Prem Prakash (2024), the Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception even under the PMLA, and that delay in trial coupled with prolonged incarceration must be read into Section 45, following Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713. Prem Prakash adds a sequencing point of real practical value: the Section 24 presumption shifts the burden to the accused only after the prosecution makes out a cogent case on the twin tests in its reply, and statutory bail under Section 479 BNSS (Section 436A CrPC) applies to PMLA custody. Anticipatory bail practice before the Special Court, and the route from the Special Court to the High Court, follows the framework of Section 45 and Section 482 BNSS read together; the applicable practice route in Gujarat for PMLA anticipatory bail specifically should be re verified at the time of any specific matter.
Illustrative matter pattern: An accused in prolonged PMLA custody, with hundreds of witnesses cited and only a fraction examined, is moved for bail on three fronts at once: on the merits under Section 45 on the prosecution’s own record, on the proviso where it applies, and on the Article 21 delay route recognised in Sisodia and Prem Prakash. The dates of arrest, complaint, cognizance and witnesses examined against witnesses cited are the arithmetic on which the modern PMLA bail argument turns.
4. Challenge to Section 19 PMLA Arrests
We challenge PMLA arrests on the safeguard ladder the Supreme Court has developed between 2023 and 2025: reasons to believe, written grounds of arrest, production within twenty four hours, and material congruence between the grounds furnished and the record produced at remand.
The ED may arrest under Section 19 PMLA before any complaint is filed in court, on written reasons to believe, from material in its possession, that the person is guilty of money laundering. Every element of that sentence is now a testable safeguard. V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2023) held that non compliance with Section 19 vitiates the arrest itself. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing as a matter of course, with Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement clarifying that the rule applies prospectively and the written grounds must follow within twenty four hours. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) carried the same requirement into the UAPA on the strength of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which is why the doctrine now travels across statutes. And in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Court held that the reasons to believe are judicially reviewable against the material that existed at the time of arrest, referring to a larger bench the further question whether a separate need and necessity to arrest must also be shown. One structural limit is often missed: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) held that once the Special Court takes cognizance, the ED cannot arrest under Section 19 at all, and an accused who appears on summons is not required to satisfy the twin bail conditions.
Illustrative matter pattern: Grounds of arrest are supplied orally at the time of production, or in writing but only after production. The arrest is challenged at the earliest opportunity on the Pankaj Bansal rule; the same challenge forms the spine of both the challenge to remand and the bail application, because an accused who does not know why he was arrested cannot contest custody, which is the point the Supreme Court has now stated in terms.
5. Customs and GST Prosecutions: Arrest, Bail and Anticipatory Bail after Radhika Agarwal
We appear in bail and anticipatory bail applications and in challenges to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the CGST and GGST Acts, 2017, and we defend Section 132 prosecutions on the strength of the safeguards the Supreme Court has now fixed in place.
Under Section 132 of the CGST Act, all offences are non cognizable and bailable except those in Section 132(5): the offences in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 132(1) punishable under clause (i), that is, where the tax evaded or input tax credit wrongly availed or refund wrongly taken exceeds five crore rupees. Under the Customs Act, Section 104(4) makes specified offences cognizable, including duty evasion exceeding fifty lakh rupees and prohibited goods cases, with the non bailable list in Section 104(6). In Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 INSC 272), the Supreme Court upheld the arrest powers but bound the officers to the general criminal procedure code and to written reasons to believe that refer to the material and the computation placing the case in the non bailable category; their absence makes the arrest illegal. The written grounds of arrest must precede production; the arrested person is entitled to intimation to a nominated person and to counsel during interrogation, and the CBIC’s own arrest instructions, including Instruction No. 02/2022-23 of 17 August 2022, are binding. Two holdings in Radhika Agarwal bear repetition. Anticipatory bail is available for apprehended arrest under the Customs and GST Acts even though there is no FIR, on ordinary Sibbia and Sushila Aggarwal principles, and contrary GST specific decisions stand overruled. And arrest cannot be used to coerce tax payment: a taxpayer who paid under threat of arrest may seek a refund, and the officers concerned face departmental consequences. In Vineet Jain v. Union of India (2025), the Court went further and deprecated routine denial of bail in documentary GST cases built on records already in the department’s custody, since tampering arguments carry little weight where the evidence is with the prosecutor.
Illustrative matter pattern: A GST arrest is recorded on a computation that combines multiple financial years and stacked ITC allegations to cross the five crore Section 132(5) threshold. The computation is contested at the bail stage on its own terms; the classification unravels, the case falls into the bailable category, and the arrest itself is testable on Radhika Agarwal. A voluntary deposit obtained during search is separately reclaimed as a refund on the anti coercion holding.
6. SFIO and Section 447 of the Companies Act: Serious Fraud Defence
We appear for directors, officers and companies in Serious Fraud Investigation Office investigations and in prosecutions under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, including examinations on oath under Section 217, remand and bail applications governed by the twin conditions of Section 212(6), and arrest challenges under Section 212(8) and the 2017 Arrest Rules.
Where the Central Government assigns a company’s affairs to the SFIO, Section 447 fraud offences become cognizable and bail is governed by twin conditions in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act that mirror Section 45 PMLA: reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail, with a proviso sparing persons under sixteen, women, and the sick or infirm. Arrest under Section 212(8) requires written reasons to believe by an officer of designated rank under the Companies (Arrests in connection with Investigation by SFIO) Rules, 2017, production within twenty four hours, and an investigation report that is a deemed police report. For directors and officers, the practical exposure usually begins with an examination on oath under Section 217, whose answers are evidence: the summons response discipline described in Section 2 of this page applies with full force, and the pleading standards developed for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (see the Page 1 director defence section for detail) travel with the Companies Act regime. Bail practice under Section 212(6) tracks the PMLA jurisprudence, including the woman proviso relief applied by the Delhi High Court and the Sisodia and Prem Prakash Article 21 delay principles.
Illustrative matter pattern: A director of a company under SFIO investigation is summoned for examination on oath under Section 217. The examination is prepared with document first discipline, the record is built with clarity on the officer’s actual role, and the answers preserve the pleading standard defences for any Section 447 prosecution that follows. Where prosecution issues, the same record supports both the Section 212(6) bail application and a quashing challenge to any summoning order that does not attribute a specific role.
7. The Parallel Property Track: Section 5 Attachment and Adjudication
We defend PMLA matters on two tracks at once. On the criminal track, before the Special Court, and on the civil track: provisional attachment under Section 5, confirmation before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8, and appeals to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26.
Provisional attachment can freeze business assets long before any trial, and the adjudication timeline is independent of the criminal case. Defending only one track loses both. The stand taken in the attachment proceedings must not hand the prosecution admissions for the bail hearing, and the bail record must not undermine the attachment defence. This is where the firm’s tax practice earns its place in a criminal brief, because proceeds of crime arguments are, at bottom, arguments about the source, character and tracing of funds: work of an accounting and tax character argued in the vocabulary of a criminal statute. Our attachment defence, adjudication representation and appeals before the Appellate Tribunal are handled by the same team that runs the criminal case, so the two records speak in one voice.
Illustrative matter pattern: Business assets are provisionally attached under Section 5 pending confirmation. The adjudication defence and the criminal defence are coordinated from the first drafting: the source and tracing narrative built for adjudication is stress tested against the bail affidavit and the eventual defence at trial, so the position taken in one proceeding neither concedes nor contradicts the position taken in the other.
8. Quashing and Constitutional Challenges in Agency Prosecutions
We appear in quashing petitions and constitutional writs before the Gujarat High Court in agency prosecutions: quashing of complaints and summoning orders on the Bhajan Lal categories and on the defence material line of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, challenges to remand orders that do not respect the safeguards in Section 3 above, and writs in appropriate cases where the agency has acted without jurisdiction or in breach of the Constitution.
Quashing under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) is available at every stage in agency prosecutions on the same principles as in ordinary criminal cases (see the Page 1 quashing section for the full framework). Two additional features matter here. First, complaints under special statutes routinely name every director without attributing any specific role; the Section 141 NI Act pleading standards, and their statutory cousins in the PMLA, GST and Companies Act regimes, provide concrete tests on which such summoning orders can be set aside. Second, some challenges belong in the writ jurisdiction rather than under Section 528. Illegality of an arrest under Section 19 PMLA, breach of the CBIC arrest instructions in a GST case, or process issued without jurisdiction are examples the Supreme Court has recognised as writ worthy where they cannot be adequately addressed at remand or bail. We assess which route serves the client best on the facts, rather than defaulting to a template.
Illustrative matter pattern: A private complaint under a special statute names all directors of a company on a generic averment. The quashing petition is built on the applicable pleading standard: for directors who did not hold executive charge and who cannot be linked to the offence by a specific role, the summoning order is set aside; the complaint proceeds only against those against whom the statute’s pleading requirement is satisfied.
9. FEMA, FEOA and Black Money Act: Adjacent Practice
We advise on and appear in FEMA compounding and adjudication proceedings, which sit naturally with the firm’s international tax and cross border transactional practice, and take instructions in matters under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 and the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
FEMA is primarily a civil regime: contraventions are dealt with by adjudication under Section 13, with penalty and compounding routes under Section 15, and appeals to the Special Director (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal. Our FEMA work covers pre adjudication representation, compounding applications, adjudication defence, and appeals, integrated with the firm’s international tax and inbound and outbound investment advisory. Prosecution under FEMA is limited and rare; where a criminal question arises adjacent to a FEMA matter, it is usually under the PMLA or the Black Money Act, both of which are treated on this page under the relevant heads. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 applies where an accused in a scheduled economic offence exceeding one hundred crore rupees has left India and refuses to return; the Special Court’s declaration under Section 12 leads to confiscation of property under Section 12(2). Black Money Act proceedings involve both assessment (before the income tax authorities) and prosecution (under Sections 49 to 55 of the Act), and depth on any specific limb of these statutes should be discussed at the consultation, since the field is smaller and more fact specific than the ED, customs and GST practice covered above.
10. How We Work and Urgent Matters
Urgent matters, including anticipatory bail where an ED, DRI, customs or GST arrest is imminent, remand support at short notice, and immediate advice on a summons received the same day, are handled with the same discipline as the firm’s ordinary criminal urgent practice, and are moved on urgent circulation before the appropriate court where required.
Our method in agency prosecutions mirrors the firm’s method elsewhere: strategy before drafting. The first assessment maps the whole board, whether the case is at the summons, arrest or complaint stage, whether attachment or adjudication proceedings are already running or foreseeable, what the realistic bail path is under the applicable statutory regime, and how the parallel civil, tax or adjudication proceedings interact with the criminal case, because in our practice they usually do. What the client brings to the first meeting decides how quickly the matter can move: the summons or arrest memo, any statement previously recorded, corporate records, banking trail, adjudication or show cause papers already issued, tax audit files where relevant, and a short written chronology from the client. Fees are discussed candidly at the first consultation and depend on urgency, forum, statute and complexity.
11. Why R & D Law Chambers
Three things distinguish the practice. First, the fiscal criminal intersection: the firm’s practice head is a dual qualified lawyer with ADIT from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, London, running international tax, GST and customs litigation alongside criminal defence, which means a director in an ED, DRI, GST or customs case is defended by a team that understands the tax as fluently as the criminal law, and treats the two questions as one. Second, judicial depth: the firm’s Senior Partner served as a Magistrate in the 1980s and has handled criminal, customs, excise and director liability matters before the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court for decades, which means our applications are drafted by people who have seen them decided. Third, candour: we do not promise outcomes, particularly in a field where the law is evolving. As one client has put it, “they have never committed any unattainable outcomes; rather they have given a clear understanding about the possibilities.” That is the standard on which defence in agency prosecutions should be bought.
12. Key Principles at a Glance
The ED can arrest without an FIR, but the arrest is testable on Section 19 grounds. Non compliance with Section 19 vitiates the arrest itself: V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2023).
The ECIR need not be supplied, but the written grounds of arrest must be. The Constitution, not the statute, requires it: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022); Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023); Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024).
Anticipatory bail is available in PMLA, Customs and GST cases. In PMLA, the Section 45 twin conditions apply to the anticipatory bail application itself; in Customs and GST cases, anticipatory bail is available on ordinary principles even though there is no FIR: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025).
Arrest cannot be used to coerce tax payment, and coerced deposits are refundable: Radhika Agarwal (2025); CBIC Instruction No. 02/2022-23.
Bail is the rule and jail the exception even under the PMLA, and trial delay coupled with prolonged incarceration must be read into Section 45: Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024); Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024); K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713.
Once the Special Court has taken cognizance of a PMLA complaint, the ED can no longer arrest under Section 19, and an accused who appears on summons is not required to satisfy the twin bail conditions: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024).
13. Frequently Asked Questions
Can the ED arrest me without an FIR?
Yes. The ED does not register an FIR; it proceeds on an internal ECIR, and Section 19 PMLA permits arrest before any complaint is filed in court, on written reasons to believe. The arrest is lawful only if those reasons exist on material in the ED’s possession and the grounds of arrest are furnished to you in writing: V. Senthil Balaji (2023) and Pankaj Bansal (2023). Non compliance with either requirement is a substantive ground for release.
Am I entitled to a copy of the ECIR?
Not at present. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) held that the ECIR is an internal document and that disclosure of the written grounds of arrest satisfies the Constitution. Review petitions on this exact question are pending before the Supreme Court, so the position should be re verified at the time of your matter.
Is anticipatory bail available in PMLA, Customs and GST cases?
Yes, in all three. In PMLA cases the Section 45 twin conditions apply to the anticipatory bail application itself, so the applicant must show reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty. For Customs and GST cases, Radhika Agarwal (2025) expressly confirms anticipatory bail is available on ordinary principles even though there is no FIR.
What are the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA?
Bail requires that the Public Prosecutor be heard and that the court find reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. A proviso permits the Special Court to release, without those conditions, a person under sixteen, a woman, a person who is sick or infirm, or a person accused of laundering less than one crore rupees.
Can GST or Customs officers arrest me to make me pay tax?
No. Radhika Agarwal (2025) holds that arrest cannot be used to coerce payment of tax; recovery requires adjudication. A payment extracted under threat of arrest can be reclaimed as a refund, and the officers concerned face departmental action.
Do I have to appear and answer an ED summons under Section 50?
Yes. Attendance is compulsory and statements are recorded on oath and are admissible, because ED officers are not police officers. You are not an accused merely because you are summoned, which is why preparation and accuracy at this stage decide cases. A statement recorded while you are in custody stands on a different footing: Prem Prakash (2024) holds it is not voluntary and cannot be used.
When does a GST offence become non bailable?
When the offence falls under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act and the tax evaded, input tax credit wrongly availed or refund wrongly taken exceeds five crore rupees: Section 132(5). All other GST offences are non cognizable and bailable.
I have been in custody for months and the trial has not started. Does that matter?
Yes, decisively. Manish Sisodia (2024) and Prem Prakash (2024) hold that bail is the rule even under the PMLA and that trial delay with prolonged incarceration must be read into Section 45, following K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713. Statutory bail under Section 479 BNSS (Section 436A CrPC) applies on completion of the prescribed custody period.
14. Related Services and Contact
Disclaimer: This page provides general information on prosecutions under special statutes and does not constitute legal advice. The law in this field is evolving, including pending Supreme Court review proceedings noted above; outcomes depend on the facts of each case, and no advocate may guarantee a result. Illustrative matter patterns describe typical scenarios and do not refer to identifiable matters or clients.