Raj Kundra Moves Bombay HC Against PMLA Court's Cognizance Order, Summons In Alleged Bitcoin Money Laundering Case
Raj Kundra has moved the Bombay High Court challenging a special PMLA court's cognizance order and summons in the ED's alleged Bitcoin-linked money laundering case. He argues the court violated the BNSS by taking cognizance without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Raj Kundra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the PMLA court's cognizance order and summons in the ED's alleged Bitcoin-linked money laundering case | AI Generated Image
Mumbai, July 28, 2026: Businessman Raj Kundra has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the cognisance order and summons issued against him by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) alleged Bitcoin-linked money laundering case.
High Court Posts Hearing
Justice Ashwin Bhobe kept the matter for hearing on August 6 after the ED's advocate sought time to take instructions.
The proceedings arise from an ED prosecution complaint filed in 2019 against Gainbitcoin.com promoter Amit Bhardwaj, directors of Variable Tech Pte Ltd, and others.
Although the special PMLA court had taken cognisance of that complaint in February 2024, Kundra was named as an accused only after the ED filed a supplementary prosecution complaint in September 2025.
ED's Allegations
The ED has alleged that Kundra received 285 Bitcoins worth around Rs 150.47 crore from Bhardwaj between July and August 2017. It claims he neither disclosed the details of the Bitcoin wallet nor handed over the cryptocurrency during the investigation.
The agency has further alleged that a transaction involving the sale of the couple's "Ocean View" apartments in Juhu at a nominal value was intended to mask the source of the funds.
On January 5 this year, the special court took cognisance of the supplementary complaint and issued summons to Kundra on January 7. He has challenged both orders before the High Court.
Challenge To Cognisance Order
Kundra's advocate argued that the special court acted in violation of Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires that an accused be given an opportunity to be heard before a court takes cognisance of an offence.
Also Watch:
The advocate contended that once the BNSS came into force, the proceedings ought to have been governed by its provisions instead of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since no notice was issued and Kundra was not heard before cognisance was taken, the order is legally unsustainable, he argued. The advocate also submitted that Kundra had appeared before the special court in response to the summons and had been granted bail.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
RECENT STORIES
-
Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis Directs Integrated Relief Plan For Palghar, Nashik After Flood... -
CWG 2026: Indian Boxer Parveen Hooda Crashes Out After Preeti, Priya Enter Semis To Confirm Medals -
Maharashtra Cabinet Approves ₹98 Crore Equity Support For MRVC To Boost Mumbai Rail Expansion -
‘Shiva Bhakti Clubbing’: Indore’s Gen Z Finds Spiritual Connect Through Music -
Vasai Man Held For Allegedly Sexually Exploiting Woman Over Black Magic Cure Promise
