Court emphasizes ongoing money laundering case despite closure of related criminal offence by CBI

The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, emphasizing that the closure of the predicated offence by the CBI does not terminate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It found sufficient evidence to support allegations of criminal conspiracy and scheduled offences, highlighting the independent nature of money laundering offences. The burden of proof under the Act lies with the accused, and previous judgments cited reinforced the self-contained nature of PMLA proceedings. The court directed expedited trial proceedings, urging the Principal Sessions Judge to conclude the case within nine months, ultimately dismissing the connected criminal miscellaneous petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Proceedings under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Scheduled Offences.
3. Distinction between Predicate Offence and Money Laundering Offence.
4. Applicability of Section 24 and Burden of Proof.
5. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Proceedings under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002:
The petitioners, a Private Limited Company and its Managing Director, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 56 of 2018 under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners argued that the predicated offence was closed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and thus, the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should also be quashed. However, the court held that the PMLA is a special statute with a distinct scope and rationale, and the closure of the predicated offence by the CBI does not necessarily terminate proceedings under the PMLA.

2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Scheduled Offences:
The complaint alleged that the petitioners conspired with bank officials to acquire property at a value lower than the guideline value, resulting in a significant loss. The property was later sold at a higher price. The CBI had registered a complaint for offences under Sections 120(B) and 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite the CBI's recommendation to close the case due to lack of prosecutable evidence, the Enforcement Directorate proceeded with the investigation under the PMLA. The court found adequate material, including witness statements and documents, to support the allegations, thus justifying the continuation of the proceedings.

3. Distinction between Predicate Offence and Money Laundering Offence:
The court emphasized that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The PMLA proceedings are distinct and can continue even if the predicated offence is closed. The definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(u) of the PMLA is broad and includes any property derived from criminal activity related to a scheduled offence. The court cited multiple judgments reinforcing that the PMLA proceedings are self-contained and independent of the outcome of the predicated offence.

4. Applicability of Section 24 and Burden of Proof:
Section 24 of the PMLA places the burden of proof on the person charged with money laundering. The court must presume that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering until proven otherwise. This presumption necessitates that the accused must disprove the allegations. The court highlighted that both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate's investigations are distinct, and the burden of proof under the PMLA remains on the accused.

5. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents:
The court referred to several judgments to substantiate its decision. It noted that the offence of money laundering is a standalone offence and can be prosecuted independently of the scheduled offence. The court dismissed the petitioners' reliance on previous Delhi High Court decisions, stating that those findings are not conclusive and binding precedents. The court also clarified that the recent amendments to Section 44(1) of the PMLA are clarificatory and do not affect the ongoing proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, stating that the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, should not be influenced by the observations made in this order while disposing of C.C. No. 56 of 2018. The court directed the Principal Sessions Judge to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within nine months. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.

---