Gurugram. A special court hearing Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases in Gurugram has ordered the interim release of jewellery worth around ₹2.02 crore that was seized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during a money laundering investigation. The jewellery has been ordered to be returned to its owner, Anita Arvind, who is not an accused in the case.
The court observed that since Anita is not an accused, keeping her jewellery in the custody of the investigating agency for an extended period would serve no useful purpose. However, the court made it clear that the order does not amount to a final determination regarding the legality of the jewellery, its ownership or whether it has any connection with proceeds of crime.
FCRF Launches CP-FRM to Build India’s Next Generation of Fraud Risk Professionals
Jewellery Seized From Bank Locker
Anita Arvind is the wife of accused Arvind Walia, who was arrested by the ED on July 21, 2025. During the investigation, the agency searched a locker maintained at an HDFC Bank branch in Vasant Vihar and seized several pieces of jewellery belonging to Anita.
Anita claimed that the jewellery had been purchased from legitimate sources and that purchase bills were available to support her claim. She subsequently sought the return of the jewellery on the ground that it belonged to her and was not connected with any alleged offence.
The ED opposed her application. The agency argued that merely producing purchase invoices does not establish that the money used to acquire the jewellery was not connected with proceeds of crime. The agency maintained that the source of funds used for purchasing the jewellery would also have to be examined as part of the investigation.
₹2.02 Crore FDR to Be Deposited
While allowing Anita’s application, the special court directed that the jewellery be released on the condition that a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) of ₹2,02,01,759 be deposited. The FDR must be maintained with a nationalised bank, with a lien in favour of the ED. It cannot be encashed, withdrawn or cancelled without the permission of the court.
The court also directed Anita to furnish a bond for the same amount along with one surety. These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the value of the jewellery remains secured during the pendency of the proceedings.
The court further restrained Anita from selling, pledging, gifting or creating any third-party interest in the jewellery. She has also been directed to keep the jewellery safe and insured.
At the time of release, a detailed inventory of the jewellery will be prepared after photographing and video graphing each item. The inventory will be signed by representatives of both sides to maintain a record of the articles being released.
The court’s order provides temporary relief to Anita while preserving the investigating agency’s ability to pursue its claims regarding the jewellery. The final determination of its ownership, legality and any alleged link with proceeds of crime will be made at a later stage of the proceedings.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
