The Enforcement Directorate has attached assets worth approximately ₹2,425.99 crore linked to Raheja Developers, alleging the builder collected funds from around 4,600 homebuyers across multiple real-estate projects without delivering promised properties. Despite the scale of the attachment — one of the largest in a real-estate money-laundering case — the promoter father-son duo behind Raheja Developers has not been taken into custody, raising pointed questions about custodial thresholds under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

This case sits at the intersection of two exam-critical legal frameworks: the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Rights of homebuyers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) / RERA. The ED's power to attach 'proceeds of crime' flows from Section 5 of PMLA, while arrest requires 'reasons to believe' recorded in writing under Section 19 PMLA — a higher threshold than mere attachment. The tension here — massive attachment without arrest — directly tests whether aspirants understand that attachment and arrest are distinct, independent powers under PMLA, not sequential steps.

For CLAT PG, the more important doctrinal layer is the Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence on custodial rights in financial crime cases. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the SC upheld PMLA's stringent bail provisions under Section 45 (twin conditions for bail) but also clarified that the ED must have concrete 'reasons to believe' — not mere suspicion — before arrest. The present Raheja case tests whether a massive attachment order alone justifies deprivation of liberty — and the answer, under current law, is no.

Homebuyers' rights are separately protected: since the IBC Amendment 2018, homebuyers are treated as 'financial creditors,' giving them standing to initiate insolvency proceedings. RERA (Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016) provides a parallel regulatory remedy. Understanding which forum — ED/PMLA, NCLT/IBC, or RERA Authority — applies in which scenario is a classic CLAT PG multi-forum distinction question.