PMLA attachment cannot survive acquittal in the scheduled offence; representation must be decided independently.

Attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot survive where the scheduled offence on which it is founded ends in acquittal, because proceeds of crime presuppose criminal activity relating to that scheduled offence. The article notes that the later amendment to section 8 did not preserve attachment once the foundational offence disappeared, so the challenge to continued attachment was treated as sustainable. It also states that, in light of the acquittal, the respondent should independently consider the petitioner's representation and not be guided by pending proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, with a fresh decision required within four weeks.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether attachment of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can continue after the scheduled offence, on which it is founded, ends in acquittal. (ii) Whether the respondent was required to dispose of the petitioner's representation independently despite pendency of proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether attachment of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can continue after the scheduled offence, on which it is founded, ends in acquittal.

Analysis: Attachment under the Act is confined to "proceeds of crime", and proceeds of crime presuppose criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The offence of money-laundering likewise rests on the existence of such proceeds. Where the scheduled offence itself is not established and the accused is acquitted, the foundational basis for treating the property as proceeds of crime is eroded. The later amendment to section 8 did not support the contention that attachment could survive notwithstanding disappearance of the scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The attachment could not lawfully continue once the scheduled offence was negated, and the petitioner's challenge had substance.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was required to dispose of the petitioner's representation independently despite pendency of proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Since an intervening event had occurred in the form of acquittal in the scheduled offence, the Court found it appropriate that the respondent consider the petitioner's representation on its own merits and not be influenced by the pending proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion: The respondent was directed to decide the representation within four weeks, independently of the Tribunal proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with directions requiring fresh consideration of the petitioner's representation in light of the acquittal, and the attachment issue was treated as prima facie unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Attachment of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot survive where the scheduled offence constituting its foundation is not established, because the existence of proceeds of crime depends on the existence of that scheduled offence.

---