ED seizes ₹53.28 crore assets of retired Assam IPS officer in PMLA case
Synopsis
A retired Assam IPS officer who served as DIG allegedly amassed ₹79 crore in disproportionate assets over a 27-year career — then, even after an FIR was filed, allegedly transferred shell company shares into his own name. The ED's ₹53.28 crore attachment of hotels and Mumbai flats is the latest move in a case that exposes how layered corporate structures and circular banking can be used to conceal public-servant corruption.
Key Takeaways
The ED provisionally attached properties worth ₹53.28 crore linked to retired IPS officer Prasanta Kumar Dutta under the PMLA .
Attached assets include four hotel properties in Guwahati and two residential flats in Andheri (West), Mumbai .
Investigators allege disproportionate assets of around ₹79.01 crore against disclosed income of approximately ₹7.23 crore .
Over ₹14.74 crore in unexplained cash was allegedly routed through shell companies and fictitious shareholders via circular bank transactions.
Dutta allegedly transferred 3.7 lakh shares of Ishan Commercial Pvt Ltd to his own name even after the FIR and ECIR were registered.
The ED's Guwahati Zonal Office confirmed further investigation is ongoing.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has provisionally attached immovable properties worth approximately ₹53.28 crore belonging to retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Prasanta Kumar Dutta, his family members, and associated group companies in connection with a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The attachment order was issued by the ED's Guwahati Zonal Office and covers hotel properties in Guwahati and two residential flats in Mumbai.
Background and FIR
The case originates from an FIR registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Branch of Assam Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR alleged that during his service period between 1992 and 2019, Dutta — who retired as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police in 2019 after being promoted from the Assam Police Service to the IPS — accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
According to investigators, while the disclosed income of Dutta and his wife stood at around ₹7.23 crore and their disclosed expenditure was approximately ₹9.04 crore, undisclosed assets worth roughly ₹77.21 crore were allegedly uncovered, with disproportionate assets estimated at around ₹79.01 crore.
How the Money Was Allegedly Laundered
The ED alleged that proceeds of crime were routed through three closely held companies: Mahamaya Estates Pvt Ltd, Ishan Commercial Pvt Ltd, and Murari Commodities Pvt Ltd — all of whose registered offices were reportedly found to be non-existent. According to the agency, over ₹14.74 crore in unexplained cash was funnelled through family members and these shell entities, using fictitious shareholders, companies based in Kolkata, and circular bank transactions, before being invested in hotel and residential properties.
Notably, investigators alleged that even after his retirement — and despite the FIR and Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) already being registered — Dutta transferred 3.7 lakh shares of Ishan Commercial Pvt Ltd from alleged dummy shareholders to his own name, making himself the majority shareholder in a company that is the beneficial owner of three of the attached hotels.
Properties Attached
The provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA covers the following properties:
Hotel Bhargav and Bhargav Inn in Paltan Bazar, Guwahati; Hotel Bhargav at Lokhra Chariali, Guwahati; Hotel Bhargav Grand at Betkuchi, Guwahati; and two residential flats in Andheri (West), Mumbai.
What Comes Next
The ED confirmed that further investigation in the case is underway. Provisional attachment orders under PMLA are typically followed by adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority, which determines whether the attachment should be confirmed. This case adds to a growing pattern of ED action against serving and retired government officials in the northeast, where disproportionate assets cases have drawn increasing scrutiny in recent years.
Point of View
Which suggests a brazen attempt to consolidate beneficial ownership even under active scrutiny. That the registered offices of all three linked companies were reportedly non-existent raises questions about how they passed routine corporate compliance checks for years. ED action at the attachment stage is still provisional; the real test of accountability will come at adjudication and, if charges are framed, in court.
NationPress
27 Jun 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ED case against Prasanta Kumar Dutta?
The ED has provisionally attached ₹53.28 crore worth of properties belonging to retired IPS officer Prasanta Kumar Dutta, his family, and group companies under the PMLA. The case stems from an FIR by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Branch of Assam Police alleging he amassed assets disproportionate to his known income during his service from 1992 to 2019.
Which properties has the ED attached in this case?
The attached properties include Hotel Bhargav and Bhargav Inn in Paltan Bazar, Hotel Bhargav at Lokhra Chariali, and Hotel Bhargav Grand at Betkuchi — all in Guwahati — along with two residential flats in Andheri (West), Mumbai.
How large are the alleged disproportionate assets?
Investigators allege undisclosed assets of approximately ₹77.21 crore, with total disproportionate assets estimated at around ₹79.01 crore — against disclosed income of about ₹7.23 crore for Dutta and his wife.
How was the money allegedly laundered?
According to the ED, over ₹14.74 crore in unexplained cash was routed through family members and three shell companies — Mahamaya Estates Pvt Ltd, Ishan Commercial Pvt Ltd, and Murari Commodities Pvt Ltd — using fictitious shareholders and circular bank transactions before being invested in hotel and residential properties.
What happens after a provisional attachment under PMLA?
A provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA is followed by adjudication before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, which decides whether to confirm the attachment. If confirmed, the case can proceed to prosecution before a special court.
