ED Cracks Down on GHMC Officer’s Disproportionate Assets, Attaches 19 Properties Worth ₹5.15 Crore

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has intensified action against corruption-linked money laundering by provisionally attaching 19 immovable properties valued at ₹5.15 crore belonging to Dacha Janardhan Mahesh, a former Town Planning Section Officer with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The attachment has been made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, marking a significant escalation in a long-running disproportionate assets case.

According to the ED’s Hyderabad Zonal Office, the properties include plots, shops, flats and residential buildings, registered in the names of Mahesh and his family members. Investigators allege that these assets represent the proceeds of crime generated during his tenure in public office.

Money Laundering Probe Triggered by ACB FIR

The ED case originates from an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad FIR dated April 4, 2016 (RC No. 03/RCA-HR/2016). The FIR invoked Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that Mahesh amassed assets far exceeding his known sources of income while serving as Town Planning Section Officer, Circle-18, GHMC, Secunderabad.

After years of investigation, the ACB filed a charge sheet on June 22, 2022 before the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. This formed the predicate offence enabling the ED to initiate money laundering proceedings.

Assets Worth ₹5.27 Crore Found Disproportionate

As per the ACB’s findings, Mahesh and his family were allegedly in possession of assets worth approximately ₹5.27 crore during the check period—an amount investigators say could not be justified through declared lawful income. The ED, treating these assets as proceeds of crime, stepped in to examine how the funds were generated, layered and invested.

Cases like this underline how weak internal controls and absence of transparent financial records allow illicit wealth accumulation to remain hidden for years-one reason experts stress the importance of disciplined accounting frameworks and independent bookkeeping services in india to ensure audit trails, income matching and early red-flag detection.

Properties Acquired Through Cash Transactions

The ED’s investigation revealed that many of the attached properties were allegedly acquired through cash-heavy transactions, either directly in Mahesh’s name or routed through relatives. Officials claim that substantial cash deposits were made into multiple bank accounts belonging to Mahesh and his family, which were then used to purchase real estate and fund personal expenditure.

According to the agency, this pattern reflects classic placement and layering techniques used to launder illicit funds—depositing cash, dispersing it across accounts, and converting it into tangible assets.

Illicit Funds Invested in Real Estate Project

Investigators have also flagged the role of K. B. Lakshminarayana, Mahesh’s cousin and a partner in M/s Maheshwari Constructions. The ED alleges that proceeds of crime were invested in a real estate project named “Sri Indira Sadan”, ostensibly to project illegal earnings as legitimate construction and development income.

Real estate remains one of the most common vehicles for laundering illicit funds in India, owing to high asset values, opaque pricing and frequent cash components-making forensic financial analysis critical in such probes.

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA

Based on material gathered so far, the ED has issued a provisional attachment order for 19 properties worth ₹5.15 crore under PMLA provisions. The attachment is preventive in nature and aims to stop alienation or sale of assets while adjudication proceedings are pending.

The order will now be placed before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, which will decide whether the attachment should be confirmed after hearing all parties.

Further Probe Underway

ED officials have confirmed that the investigation is ongoing, with focus on tracing additional money trails, cash movements and possible involvement of other individuals. If further proceeds of crime are identified, more attachments and prosecutions may follow.

The case reinforces a broader enforcement trend: disproportionate assets cases are no longer confined to corruption charges alone but increasingly pursued through the money laundering framework, where property attachment becomes a powerful deterrent.