Money laundering prosecution fails when the predicate offence ends in final acquittal and no subsisting basis remains.

Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot continue once the scheduled offence has ended in final acquittal, discharge, or quashing, because the existence of a subsisting predicate offence is the jurisdictional foundation for section 3. Where the co-accused in the predicate case had been finally acquitted and no contrary basis remained, the complaint, ECIR, and consequential proceedings could not be sustained and were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can continue after the accused in the scheduled offence has been finally acquitted and the predicate proceedings have attained finality.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the offence of money-laundering under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is dependent on the existence of a scheduled offence and the illegal gain generated from criminal activity relating to that offence. The Court relied on binding precedent that where the person concerned is finally discharged, acquitted, or the criminal case relating to the scheduled offence is quashed, the legal substratum for a money-laundering prosecution disappears. The acquittal of the co-accused in the predicate case had attained finality and no contrary basis remained to sustain the complaint or the ECIR.

Conclusion: The complaint, ECIR, and all consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the money-laundering proceedings could not survive in the absence of a subsisting scheduled offence.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for money-laundering cannot stand when the scheduled offence has finally ended in acquittal, discharge, or quashing, because the existence of a subsisting predicate offence is an essential jurisdictional foundation for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

---