MUMBAI, Oct. 14 -- A special PMLA court has allowed Puneet Bhatia, the India head of US-based private equity firm TPG Capital, to intervene in money-laundering proceedings arising from an alleged Rs.17.9-crore art fraud in which he claims to have been sold 11 counterfeit paintings passed off as original works of some of India's most renowned artists. Special judge SV Sahare allowed Bhatia to assist the prosecution primarily because he was the "first informant" or original complainant in the cheating and forgery case that led to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) money-laundering investigation. The case dates back to December 2023, when the Tardeo police registered an FIR following Bhatia's complaint that he had been cheated into buying 11 paintings purportedly made by celebrated artists including FN Souza, Manjit Bawa, MF Husain and SH Raza. Bhatia said that he paid Rs.17.9 crore for the artworks, believing them to be originals. Bhatia told the police that after he displayed the paintings on the walls of his home, some of his friends who viewed them closely raised suspicions about their authenticity. He approached the police after a company specialising in the authentication of artworks concluded that the artists' signatures at the bottom of the paintings were forged. The FIR named Mumbai-based Rare Art Gallery Pvt Ltd, its owner and art dealer Rajesh Rajpal, bullion traders Abhishek Jain and Manish Sakariya, and corporate lawyer Vishwang Desai as the accused. They were booked for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and using forged documents as genuine, under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. The ED subsequently launched a separate investigation into suspected money laundering linked to the alleged fraud, as cheating and forgery are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The accused have denied the allegations. Bhatia recently applied to the special court seeking permission to intervene in the case "to bring proper facts on record". The accused strongly objected to the plea, arguing that the ED, and not Bhatia, was the complainant in the money-laundering case. They contended that the money-laundering proceedings were distinct from the predicate offence, which involved cheating and forgery, and therefore Bhatia had no legal right to intervene. The ED, however, had no objection to Bhatia intervening. The special court overruled the accused's objections, observing that although the offence of money laundering is distinct from the predicate offence, the procedure to be followed is the same as contemplated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)....