Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s 26 luxury cars to be sold by ED. Here’s why

The Delhi High Court has permitted the sale of 26 luxury cars owned by conman Sukesh Chandrasekar. The court's decision was based on recognising that the vehicles are susceptible to deterioration and depreciation over time. 

Newswire ANI reported that the cars had been seized and were in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as part of an ongoing money laundering investigation related to an extortion case involving ₹200 crore.

Leena Maria Paulose, Sukesh's wife, moved a petition challenging the order permitting the sale of the cars. In a recent judgement, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed her plea.

Who keeps the money from sale?

The high court directed the ED to keep the entire amount generated from the sale of the cars in question in an 'interest-bearing' fixed deposit.

“Vehicles are inherently subject to natural decay and depreciation over a period of time, which significantly impacts their value and functionality. With the passage of time, vehicles undergo wear and tear,” Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said.

The High Court said in a judgement passed on July 12, “Further, storing a vehicle in a container warehouse, as in the present case, for a long period of time results in decay since if a car is left stationary for years, several issues can compromise its condition. Environmental factors such as weather conditions also contribute to this decay, causing issues such as rust and corrosion.” 

“Rust, in particular, can severely damage a vehicle's structure and all other components,” Justice Sharma said.

The bench said that a vehicle's mechanical components also suffer from decay, requiring frequent and expensive maintenance to keep them operational. This is especially true in the present case, where 26 high-end luxury cars, such as Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Range Rover, etc., are involved.

Upkeep and maintenance are also expensive. The bench added that the care and protection cars require in container warehouses, from environmental onslaughts and decay due to rusting, cannot be ensured.

The depreciation of vehicles is also a well-recognized phenomenon in the automobile industry. When a car is driven out of the showroom, its value decreases. This depreciation accelerates each year, and the resale value drops substantially. After some years, most vehicles lose a significant part of their original value, making them less economically viable to maintain or sell.

The high court said that, therefore, the argument that the sale of seized vehicles in this case is against the mandate of Section 8(6) of PMLA has no merit.

Needless to say, as per Section 8(6), if the accused persons, in this case, are found not guilty of the offence of money laundering, they would be entitled to receive the amount generated from selling the movable property, i.e. cars in the present case, which the Directorate of Enforcement is obliged to keep deposited in the nearest Government Treasury or branch of the State Bank of India or its subsidiaries or in any nationalised bank in fixed deposit.

Petitioner Leena Maria Paulose had moved a petition for quashing and setting aside orders dated December 20, 2022, and February 15, 2023, passed by the trial court.

A total of 26 luxury and high-end cars were found and seized by the respondent, which was prima facie found to have been purchased out of the "proceeds of crime" generated out of the criminal activities of Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

On the other hand, in the case of the respondent since the 26 luxury cars were liable to speedy and natural decay and since the expenses of maintenance of the said vehicles were likely to exceed their value and cause unnecessary burden upon the exchequer, an appropriate application was moved before the learned ASJ seeking permission under Rule 4(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by Adjudicatory Authority), Rules 2013, for the sale of vehicles in question, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said rule. The same was allowed by the learned ASJ vide impugned order dated December 20, 2022.

It is the specific case of the respondent that the 26 cars in question, which are expensive and luxury cars, are those movable properties that are subject to natural decay or the expense of their maintenance is likely to exceed their value. No argument has been addressed on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicles in question are not subject to natural decay.