Photo of Nikhil Varshney

Nikhil Varshney

Partner in the Disputes, White Collar and Investigations practice at the Delhi - NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Nikhil handles general commercial litigation and sensitive criminal matters and investigations for domestic and international clients. He also has an expertise in handling internal investigations regarding a wide range of issues relating to bribery, ethics and integrity, misconduct, financial irregularities and fraud. He can be reached at nikhil.varshney@cyrilshroff.com.

On the List: OFAC’s Iran Sanctions Impacting Indian Companies and Nationals

 

Summary: This blog examines the October 2025 OFAC sanctions targeting Iranian oil trade, which included eight Indian nationals and nine Indian companies on the Specially Designated Nationals list. It analyzes the legal framework behind these sanctions, their practical implications for affected parties, available delisting options, and the broader risks facing Indian businesses engaged in cross-border trade.Continue Reading On the List: OFAC’s Iran Sanctions Impacting Indian Companies and Nationals

Introduction

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (“FCRA/Act”), is an important piece of legislation that Parliament has enacted to prohibit acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for activities detrimental to national interest.Continue Reading Navigating the Evolving FCRA Landscape: Enhanced Responsibility of Chartered Accountants

Renewed focus on Liberty - Delhi High Court upholds Constitutional Safeguards on Bail under PMLA

Securing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA“), is challenging due to the high threshold for bail stipulated by the Act. Section 45 of the PMLA stipulates that bail may be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if two conditions are met: first, the Public Prosecutor must be given the opportunity to oppose the bail application; second, there must be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is frequently contended that these twin conditions pose a significant challenge to the prevailing legal principle in criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the twin conditions challenge an accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution[1].Continue Reading Renewed focus on Liberty – Delhi High Court upholds Constitutional Safeguards on Bail under PMLA

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), is a comprehensive law, dealing with aspects of money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication, and confiscation thereof. The “proceeds of crime” is the fulcrum of the offence of money-laundering under the PMLA and all actions taken by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) under the PMLA invariably revolve around it. Accordingly, the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA is of immense relevance. In terms of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, “any property derived or obtained… by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence…” is regarded as proceeds of crime. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[1] (“Vijay Madanlal”), the expression “derived or obtained” is indicative of a criminal activity, relating to a scheduled offence, already accomplished. The commission of a scheduled offense, whether registered with the jurisdictional police or under review by a competent forum through a complaint, constitutes the legal basis for any investigation conducted under the PMLA.Continue Reading Shifting Paradigms in PMLA Jurisprudence: Madras High Court reopens settled principles of Automatic Quashing of PMLA Proceedings

Navigating the Crypto Maze: Delhi HC expands scope of predicate offences under PMLA

Introduction

A single judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a significant ruling in the matter of Adnan Nisar v. Directorate of Enforcement and other connected matters[1], on September 17, 2024, holding that an offence committed in a foreign country can be classified as Predicate Offence, under the Prevention of…

Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating: Decoding the Confusion

Introduction

Offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust are often invoked in Indian criminal law system. It is common practice that when a First Information Report (“FIR”) is registered under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (Section 316 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)) for criminal breach of trust, the same is also registered under Section 420 of IPC (Section 318 of BNS) for cheating. This practice is on account of a long-drawn confusion between the two offences, wherein the two are often equated and thus understood as offences with similar ingredients.Continue Reading Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating: Decoding the Confusion

Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?

Introduction

On January 16, 2024, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case of Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.,[1] (“Chandrababu Naidu Case”) wherein the pertinent question of law was relating to the interpretation of the scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). The provision provides for a requirement of taking a prior approval of an appropriate authority before initiating any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act. Since the alleged offences in the instant case were committed prior to July 26, 2018 – the date on which Section 17A was incorporated vide the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018, the issues identified by the Supreme Court relate to the interpretation and ambit of the following legal questions:Continue Reading Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?

No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? - Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction

In the matter of Ashish Bhalla vs. State and Another[1](“Judgment”), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) has recently ruled that once an investigation by the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) has been initiated, a parallel investigation by a separate investigating agency into the affairs of the company is not permissible, considering the bar under Section 212 of the 2013 Act (“Section 212”). While the Madras High Court in the matter of Ravi Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Another[2] had made similar observations to sub-clause (2) of Section 212, its application had not been sufficiently visible.Continue Reading No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? –  Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction

Unsettling the balance: analysing the Import of section 167(2) OF CRPC.

The debate around the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), as regards timing of police custody has reawakened since the Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji vs. State represented by Deputy Director & Ors.[1]; 2023 SCC Online SC 934(“Senthil Balaji Case”), sought to re-examine the position. In the course of assessing the import of Section 167(2) of CrPC, the Supreme Court has raised doubts on the otherwise settled position of law laid down in the Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni[2];(1992) 3 SCC 141, later concurred by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Budh Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2000) 9 SCC 266. The Supreme Court has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for appropriate orders to form a larger bench.Continue Reading Unsettling the balance: Analysing the Import of Section 167(2) of CRPC.

Significance of Providing Un-Relied Documents to Accused An Indicator of a Fair Trial

One of the key facets of the criminal law regime is that an individual/ entity should be given a fair and transparent trial. Sections 207 and 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) are in furtherance to the said principle, which relate to providing copies of police report and other documents to accused persons.Continue Reading Significance of Providing Un-Relied Documents to Accused: An Indicator of a Fair Trial