NEW DELHI: Official parliamentary data shows a widening gap between the number of money laundering cases registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and those that have reached judicial conclusion, with convictions confined to a small fraction of cases.
The ED’s recent search operations in West Bengal have once again drawn attention to the agency’s expanding use of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Official data placed before Parliament shows that while the ED has registered over 5,000 money laundering cases in the last five years, only a small number have reached judicial determination on merits.
On Thursday, the agency carried out search operations at ten locations in West Bengal and Delhi under the PMLA in connection with an alleged coal smuggling syndicate. These included six locations in West Bengal and four in Delhi. Two of the premises searched in Kolkata were associated with the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), which has been working with the Trinamool Congress for over five years.
After the operation, the ED stated that its investigation had revealed the existence of a coal smuggling syndicate allegedly led by 47-year-old Purulia-based businessman Anup Majee, also known as Lala. According to the agency, the syndicate was involved in illegal coal theft and excavation from leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), with the illegally mined coal being sold to factories and plants in Bankura, Bardhaman, Purulia, and other districts of West Bengal.
The ED maintained that the searches conducted at I-PAC offices were evidence-based and not targeted at any political establishment. In June 2025, the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Majee in the money laundering case. The proceedings under the PMLA were initiated by the ED on 28 November 2020, following the registration of an FIR by the CBI against Majee and others.
During the bail hearing, Majee’s counsel argued that the ED had embarked on a prolonged “witch-hunt” spanning over four years in an attempt to implicate him as a means of settling political scores. The ED, in contrast, claimed that Majee was running an organised syndicate involved in illegal mining and theft of coal from ECL leasehold areas. Court records show that Majee, Amit Kumar Dhar, and several other public and private individuals were alleged to have been involved in illegal excavation and theft of coal from ECL leasehold areas.
The CBI has alleged that the syndicate operated in active connivance with officials of ECL, the CISF, Indian Railways, and other departments, who facilitated the misappropriation of coal amounting to criminal breach of trust of government property. The CBI further stated that during the investigation, a large number of vehicles and equipment used in illegal coal mining and transportation were seized, and several illegal concrete weigh bridges were detected.
In July 2022, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Majee and 40 other accused before the Court of the Special Judge (CBI), Asansol, West Bengal, which has taken cognisance of the offences. While granting anticipatory bail, the Delhi High Court noted the prolonged duration of the investigation and the absence of custodial interrogation at that stage.
Beyond individual cases, official data placed before Parliament highlights a significant mismatch between the number of PMLA cases registered and those that have reached judicial conclusion. According to written replies submitted by the Government of India to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the Enforcement Directorate registered over 5,000 Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) between January 2020 and mid-2025. An ECIR is the ED’s internal document that formally records the initiation of a money laundering investigation under the PMLA.
In contrast, only 41 cases were decided on merits by courts during this period , of which 38 resulted in conviction orders. In separate official communications, the ED has stated that around 50 to 53 cases decided on merits have resulted in convictions since 2019, involving more than 90 accused persons. The government has also disclosed that approximately 120 persons have been convicted under the PMLA since August 2019, a figure spanning multiple financial years and including convictions arising from cases registered prior to the last five-year period.
The data shows that while more than 5,000 cases were initiated in five years, only about 50 have concluded with judicial verdicts on merits, leaving the overwhelming majority pending at various stages of investigation, prosecution, or trial. The government and the ED have repeatedly cited a conviction rate of over 90 percent. However, this figure is calculated only on the basis of cases where trials have concluded and judgments delivered, and not on the total number of cases registered or under investigation.
In multiple replies to Parliament, the Ministry of Finance has attributed delays in the disposal of PMLA cases to factors such as the complex nature of financial transactions, the involvement of multiple accused and properties, attachment and adjudication proceedings, and the requirement that money laundering trials proceed alongside trials for predicate or scheduled offences under other laws.
Last month, the government informed Parliament that between June 2014 and October 2025, the ED registered a total of 6,312 money laundering cases. During the same period, the agency filed 1,805 main prosecution complaints and 568 supplementary prosecution complaints before special PMLA courts. This indicates that less than one-third of all registered cases progressed to the stage of filing a main prosecution complaint.
The data further shows that only 120 accused persons were convicted by special PMLA courts during this entire period. In percentage terms, convictions account for roughly 1.9 percent of all cases registered, or about one conviction for every 52 cases filed. ED’s own statistical disclosures published on its official website show that while the number of ECIRs has risen sharply over the past decade, the number of cases that have completed trial remains limited. The available data does not indicate that large numbers of cases have been closed, withdrawn, or quashed during the last five years. The absence of publicly available, stage-wise data on pending PMLA cases makes it difficult to assess how many investigations are progressing toward trial, how many are stalled, and how many may never reach judicial determination.
