“Keep it attached, but allow me to do other business.” That was Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal’s submission as the Karnataka High Court reserved its order on the WinZO subsidiaries’ plea to shift ED-attached US bank funds. The attachment itself remains under challenge.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on 7 October reserved its order on an interim application by WinZO’s foreign subsidiaries seeking to relocate, within the United States, funds attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act [Winzo US Inc and Another v. Union of India and Others].
The matter, WP No. 22761/2026, was heard by Justice C.M. Poonacha, who indicated that the order would follow the next day.
Attachment is not control
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal submitted that an attachment restricts only the transfer of property and gives the ED no operational control over it. His words to the Court:
Keep it attached, but allow me to do other business.
The current banking partner, he said, had ended its relationship, so the funds need to move within the United States while the attachment restrictions continue. He also submitted that four of the five predicate offences had been closed or quashed, that the remaining proceedings involve about Rs 50 lakh, and that the ED has attached roughly Rs 1,000 crore in all.
The ED’s answer
Advocate Madhukar Deshpande, for the ED, submitted that its investigation has identified alleged proceeds of crime of about Rs 3,522 crore, including substantial transfers to the US subsidiary. The agency asked that the attached funds stay in an account supervised by the Government of India, or as the Court directs.
What the petition challenges
The petitioners, WinZO US Inc and WinZO SG Pte Ltd, are subsidiaries of the gaming platform WinZO. They are challenging the ED’s provisional attachment of assets valued at Rs 505 crore under the PMLA, and they also question the constitutional validity of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority. The ED’s allegations are untested and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the attachment.
What the pending order will settle
The order will decide whether funds under provisional attachment can move to another bank while staying frozen, a question that arises whenever a banking relationship ends mid-proceedings. It will not decide the validity of the attachment or the constitutional challenge, both of which remain pending.
Case Title: Winzo US Inc and Another v. Union of India and Others [WP No. 22761/2026]
Bench: Justice C.M. Poonacha, Karnataka High Court
Date of Hearing: October 7, 2026 (order reserved)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal for the petitioners; Advocate Madhukar Deshpande for the Enforcement Directorate