The Allahabad High Court has held that professional legal fees paid by a client accused in a criminal case cannot automatically be treated as black money or proceeds of crime. The Court questioned the freezing of an advocate’s entire bank account in connection with a cybercrime investigation, observing that such action could affect the lawyer’s livelihood and disrupt the administration of justice.
Advocate Challenges Account Freeze
The observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by Kanpur-based advocate Ayush Vajpayee. He challenged the freezing of his savings account maintained at the Krishna Nagar branch of the State Bank of India.
According to the petitioner, the bank informed him that the account had been frozen at the request of the cyber cell in connection with an alleged cybercrime-related transaction. He argued that the money credited to the account represented professional legal fees paid by clients for services rendered.
Court Seeks State’s Response
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar directed the State’s Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a personal affidavit within two weeks. The Court sought an explanation on how police authorities should regulate the freezing of advocates’ bank accounts.
The petitioner submitted that legal fees are legitimate professional income and cannot be presumed to be illicit merely because the client is facing criminal charges. The Court noted that every accused person has a constitutional right to legal representation and is entitled to pay an advocate for professional services.
Freezing Entire Account Questioned
Referring to earlier judicial precedents, the High Court observed that if a bank account contains a suspicious or allegedly fraudulent transaction, action by police or the cyber cell should ordinarily be confined to the disputed amount.
The Bench indicated that freezing an entire bank account may not be proportionate or legally justified in every case. It observed that legal fees received by an advocate cannot be characterised as proceeds of crime solely because they were paid by an accused person.
The matter remains pending before the High Court. The State Government has been directed to respond, and the Court indicated that clearer guidelines may be needed to balance cybercrime investigations with the uninterrupted functioning of the justice system.
