ED Is Misusing FEMA to Detain my Vehicles: Manideep Mago Before Delhi HC
Manideep Mago, on May 22, appeared before the court, claiming that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had misused the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) to unlawfully detain his vehicles. Represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, Mago argued that the ED lacked the authority under FEMA to take such action and accused the agency of acting beyond its legal mandate. Senior Advocate Chaudhri stated, “ED wearing the hat of FEMA is detaining my vehicles without any cause. They do not have the power to detain a vehicle under FEMA”.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta presided over the matter. Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain represented the Union of India. The case involved alleged violations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).
On May 15, the court granted partial relief to Mago in relation to the proceedings under both the IPC and FEMA. However, the bench clarified that the enactment of FEMA did not grant an individual immunity from prosecution under the IPC, even if the alleged offences arose from the same set of actions.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Chaudhri submitted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED), while acting under FEMA, had detained Mago’s vehicles without any lawful authority. He argued that the ED had no power under FEMA to detain vehicles and further stated that he had challenged the ED proceedings on three grounds, which were taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
He contended that the adjudicating authority acted in haste, dismissed his claims, and proceeded to attach his property. He also mentioned that his initial writ petition challenged the attachment of property under FEMA. “The adjudicating authority in a hurry ousts me and attaches my property”, Senior Advocate Chaudhri asserted.
Responding to the submissions, the court indicated it would pass an order. It further advised the petitioner to withdraw the current plea with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the adjudicating authority.
Senior Advocate Chaudhri asserted that the ED had acted with malice and expressed his intention to raise the issue before the appellate authority. The court agreed and directed the listing of the matter before the appellate forum on the grounds of mala fide conduct.
Background:
Per the ED's case, Mago had accepted cash deposits into certain bank accounts and transferred the funds abroad through his company using fake invoices for software imports from M/s Mozire Technologies Ltd. A simultaneous search was also conducted at Birfa IT’s office, resulting in the seizure of digital devices and documents.
On the same day, the ED lodged a complaint with the Crime Branch, Delhi, which led to the registration of an FIR. Mago was arrested on May 31, 2024 and remanded to police custody. Treating the FIR offences as predicate offences, the ED registered an ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri
For Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain
Case Title: Manideep Mago v Union (W.P.(C) - 6619/2025)