PMLA liability requires proceeds of crime plus projection as untainted property; absent both, prosecution cannot stand.

Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires a criminal activity generating proceeds of crime and a further act of projecting those proceeds as untainted property. On the pleaded facts, the alleged amount had already been seized in the underlying corruption case, and the complaint did not identify any proceeds of crime acquired by the petitioner or any projection of such property as clean money. The separate Asan Memorial allegations did not cure this defect, as the petitioner was already found not involved in the predicate bribe transaction. The prosecution was therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained against the petitioner when the alleged proceeds of crime had already been seized in the underlying corruption case and no material showed that the petitioner had projected any such proceeds as untainted property.

Analysis: For an under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court noted that there must be criminal activity generating proceeds of crime and a further act of projecting those proceeds as untainted property. On the facts pleaded in the complaint, the alleged amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- had been seized by the CBI in the clinic of the principal accused, leaving no basis to attribute any laundering act to the petitioner. The Court also found that the complaint did not disclose any specific proceeds of crime acquired by the petitioner or any projection of such property as clean money. The allegations relating to the separate Asan Memorial matter did not cure this defect, since the petitioner had already been found not involved in the predicate bribe transaction.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---