The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Panaji Zonal Office, has filed a Prosecution Complaint against Siddique, also known as Suleman Khan, in connection with an alleged land-grabbing and money-laundering operation involving properties in North Goa valued at approximately ₹278 crore.
The complaint was filed on September 11, 2026, before the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at the District and Sessions Court, North Goa, Merces.
According to the ED’s press release, the agency identified the allegedly grabbed properties as proceeds of crime and provisionally attached them under the PMLA. The investigation concerns claims that ownership records were manipulated through fabricated sale deeds, counterfeit stamps and seals.
The agency further alleged that money generated by monetising fraudulent claims over the properties was moved through third-party and benami bank accounts and a partnership firm operated using a second Permanent Account Number.
The filing of a Prosecution Complaint marks a significant stage in the case. However, the allegations must still be examined by the Special Court, and the accused retains the legal right to contest the ED’s claims.
How the ED Investigation Began
The ED initiated its money-laundering investigation on the basis of four charge sheets filed by the Special Investigation Team for land grabbing under the Goa Police Crime Branch.
Those charge sheets arose from FIRs registered at Mapusa Police Station and Valpoi Police Station in Goa.
Under the PMLA framework, the ED generally investigates the financial dimension of an underlying scheduled offence. In this case, the alleged offences connected with land grabbing formed the foundation for examining whether proceeds of crime had been generated, transferred, concealed or projected as legitimate property.
Land fraud cases can involve several overlapping records, including title documents, sale deeds, mutation entries, registration records, powers of attorney and tax receipts. Investigators must establish the genuine ownership history while identifying when and how the allegedly false documentation entered the official system.
The Alleged Land-Grabbing Method
The ED alleged that Siddique devised a criminal conspiracy to take control of valuable immovable properties in North Goa belonging to their legitimate owners.
According to the agency, the alleged method involved preparing fabricated deeds of sale and planting them in the registration records maintained at the offices of the Sub-Registrars of Bardez and Valpoi.
Counterfeit stamps and seals were allegedly used to make the documents appear genuine.
A fabricated sale deed can create the appearance that a property was legally transferred even when the actual owner never sold it. If the false document enters an official registration record, it may subsequently be used to support mutation applications, ownership claims, resale transactions or financial dealings.
The investigation must therefore examine not only the document itself but also:
- The identity of the purported seller and buyer
- The signatures and witnesses appearing on the deed
- Stamp-duty and registration records
- The date and method through which the document entered official custody
- Property descriptions and survey numbers
- Earlier and subsequent transactions involving the land
- Digital and physical records maintained by registration offices
The legal strength of the case will depend on establishing both the falsity of the documents and the accused’s alleged role in creating, inserting or using them.
From Fraudulent Claims to Alleged Proceeds of Crime
The ED claimed that the accused monetised fraudulent claims created over the disputed properties.
Monetisation may occur when an allegedly false ownership interest is sold, transferred, used to obtain money or otherwise converted into financial value.
Once such money is generated, investigators examine whether it constitutes proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence.
The ED alleged that the funds were laundered through bank accounts belonging to third parties and benami account holders. Such accounts may be used to distance the apparent recipient of money from the person who allegedly controls or benefits from it.
However, merely receiving money in a third-party account does not automatically establish money laundering. Investigators must show the relevant financial connections, beneficial control and knowledge or involvement required under the applicable law.
Partnership Firm Allegedly Operated Through a Second PAN
One of the most significant allegations concerns the use of a partnership firm operated with a second PAN.
A PAN is intended to provide a unique tax identity for tracking a person’s financial transactions and tax compliance. The use of more than one PAN can create serious tax, banking and identity-related concerns, particularly where it is allegedly connected with undisclosed or questionable financial activity.
The ED claimed that the partnership firm was used as part of the laundering mechanism. The agency also alleged that a substantial portion of the money was converted into cash to project the proceeds of crime as legitimate.
Investigators may compare:
- PAN-linked bank accounts
- Income-tax returns and financial statements
- Partnership deeds and capital contributions
- Cash withdrawals and deposits
- Payments received from property transactions
- Beneficial ownership and control of the firm
- GST, registration and other statutory records
Any inconsistency between the identity documents, tax records and banking trail may become important evidence during the court proceedings.
Properties Worth Approximately ₹278 Crore Attached
The ED reported that the immovable properties allegedly grabbed in the case were valued at approximately ₹278 crore.
These properties were identified by the agency as proceeds of crime and provisionally attached under the PMLA. The official release confirms both the estimated value and the attachment action.
A provisional attachment is intended to prevent the transfer, concealment or disposal of property while proceedings continue. It does not by itself amount to a final confiscation or conclusive determination of ownership.
The attachment must proceed through the statutory process, including consideration by the competent adjudicating authority. Affected persons may present evidence and exercise the remedies available under law.
The distinction matters because attachment protects the property during the investigation, while final confiscation requires completion of the prescribed legal process.
Arrest and Judicial Custody
The ED arrested Siddique on July 16, 2026.
After completion of his ED custody, he was remanded to judicial custody. According to the press release, he remained at Central Jail, Colvale, when the Prosecution Complaint was announced.
The filing of the complaint means that the ED has placed its case and supporting material before the Special Court. The court will consider the allegations, evidence and applicable legal requirements during subsequent proceedings.
The ED also stated that further investigation remains in progress, indicating that the agency may continue examining additional properties, transactions, individuals or entities connected with the alleged scheme.
What Is a PMLA Prosecution Complaint?
A Prosecution Complaint under the PMLA performs a role broadly comparable to a charge sheet in a criminal case.
It places before the Special Court the allegations, evidence, financial trail and legal provisions relied upon by the ED. The court may then consider whether to take cognisance and proceed with the matter.
The filing does not establish guilt. The prosecution must prove its case through admissible evidence, while the accused has the right to challenge the allegations and present a defence.
In a property-related money-laundering case, the evidentiary trail may include title records, forensic document reports, registration data, bank statements, tax records and evidence regarding beneficial ownership.
The Larger Takeaway
The case demonstrates how weaknesses or manipulation within property-registration records can create long-term legal and financial consequences.
Property buyers, investors and lenders should not rely solely on a registered sale deed. Registration records must be supported by a complete examination of title history, survey details, encumbrances, possession, seller identity and the authenticity of previous transactions.
A document appearing in an official record may still be disputed if its origin, signatures or supporting instruments are fraudulent.
For businesses dealing in real estate, strong due diligence is therefore essential before purchasing, financing or accepting property as security.
Shunyatax Global Insights
Property fraud and money-laundering investigations require coordination across legal, tax, accounting and forensic-document functions.
Individuals and businesses should preserve the complete financial trail for property transactions, including agreements, payment records, source-of-funds documentation, tax disclosures and ownership verification.
If you or your business is facing problems involving an ED investigation, PMLA proceedings, property attachment, benami transactions, disputed ownership or financial-documentation gaps, Shunyatax Global can provide professional guidance to help you move forward with clarity and confidence.
Contact Shunyatax Global
Phone: +91 94615 14198
Email: office@shunyatax.in
Website: www.shunyatax.in
Disclaimer: This article is based on the Directorate of Enforcement press release dated September 14, 2026. The allegations are subject to adjudication, and no statement in this article should be interpreted as a final finding of guilt. This content is intended for general information and does not constitute legal, tax or financial advice.