·The Hindu·15 marks·250–350 words

Discuss whether ED's expanding use of PMLA in non-traditional areas such as event and sports finance strengthens accountability or weakens federal policing.

New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →
In this answer
  1. How it strengthens accountability
  2. How it may weaken federal policing
  3. Way forward

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has registered a PMLA case over alleged misappropriation linked to the failed plan to bring Argentina and Lionel Messi to Kochi in 2025 [1]. Following event money can strengthen accountability. It weakens federal policing only when PMLA replaces State investigation instead of supporting it.

How it strengthens accountability

  • Follows the money trail: PMLA reaches "proceeds of crime", meaning property obtained from a scheduled offence [2]. Sponsorship deals and fees paid abroad are private contracts, so they pass outside State budgets and audits. Money-laundering law can still trace them.
  • Preserves assets: ED can provisionally attach property for up to 180 days. It must file a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days [3]. This stops funds from disappearing before trial.
  • Built-in limit: If there is no scheduled offence, there are no proceeds of crime [4]. A cancelled match alone cannot become a money-laundering case. ED must show that money was diverted.
  • Deterrence: When a private deal carries the State's name, organisers and intermediaries now face real legal risk.

How it may weaken federal policing

  • State subject: Police and public order fall under the State List (Seventh Schedule). State police investigate the predicate offence while a central agency pursues the money. The two parallel probes may reach different conclusions on the same facts.
  • Process as punishment: The Section 45 twin bail conditions are mandatory [5]. Turning a commercial failure into a PMLA case can mean long custody before any finding of guilt.
  • Few cases finish: Prosecution complaints filed in 1,739 cases are still at trial, and only 34 people were convicted in FY 2024-25 [6]. Expanding into new areas adds cases faster than courts deliver verdicts.
  • Trust deficit: If PMLA is seen to be used selectively, Centre–State cooperation in investigations suffers.

Way forward

  • ED and State police should keep one shared record of the predicate case.
  • Payments to foreign federations should go through escrow, and sponsor agreements should be made public.
  • The government should report each year how many ECIRs lead to a complaint and a verdict, and should add more special courts.

PMLA's reach into event finance improves accountability when it rests on a real scheduled offence and works alongside State police. Cooperative federalism, transparent sponsorship rules and quicker trials would make this expansion a safeguard rather than an overreach.

Sources

  1. 1The Hindu, "Messi event row: ED files PMLA case" (Kochi Bureau, 8 Nov 2026)ED registers PMLA case over the failed 2025 Kochi friendly
  2. 2The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (Act 15 of 2003), India Codedefinition of proceeds of crime and the scheduled-offence basis
  3. 3PMLA Section 5, Attachment of property involved in money-laundering (Income Tax Department)180-day provisional attachment; complaint to the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days
  4. 4Supreme Court, Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 301 (8 Apr 2024)no scheduled offence, no proceeds of crime
  5. 5Supreme Court, Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 INSC 210 (13 Feb 2025)Section 45 twin bail conditions are mandatory
  6. 6Directorate of Enforcement, Annual Report FY 2024-25 (PIB)prosecution complaints in 1,739 cases still at trial; 34 convictions in FY 2024-25

More from this note