Continuing offence under PMLA keeps laundering prosecution alive despite earlier predicate offence and no prior attachment requirement.

Money laundering under PMLA was treated as a continuing offence, so the decisive factor was the later dealing with proceeds of crime by concealment, possession, use, or projection as untainted property; prosecution remained maintainable even though the predicate offence arose earlier and the scheduled offence was included in the PMLA schedule later. The court also noted that a charge-sheet in the scheduled offence and prior provisional attachment were not conditions precedent to investigation or prosecution under PMLA, because the laundering offence is independent and the Act permits survey, search, seizure, and arrest without those preconditions. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, and refusal to apply concurrent-sentence benefit under section 427 CrPC, were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the inclusion of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the PMLA schedule with effect from 1 June 2009 barred prosecution for laundering activities linked to a prior check period; (ii) whether registration and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required a charge-sheet in the scheduled offence and prior attachment of property; and (iii) whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, and the refusal to apply section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, called for interference.

Issue (i): whether the inclusion of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the PMLA schedule with effect from 1 June 2009 barred prosecution for laundering activities linked to a prior check period.

Analysis: The relevant offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is the process of dealing with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, use, and projection as untainted property. That activity was found to have continued after the scheduled-offence entry took effect. The offence of money laundering is treated as a continuing offence, and the decisive date is the date of laundering activity, not the date of the predicate offence. The fact that the predicate offence arose during an earlier period did not invalidate prosecution once the proceeds of crime were later possessed, concealed, or projected as legitimate.

Conclusion: The objection based on retrospectivity failed and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether registration and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required a charge-sheet in the scheduled offence and prior attachment of property.

Analysis: The offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is independent and turns on the existence of proceeds of crime and involvement in the prohibited laundering process. The statutory scheme confers powers of survey, search, seizure, and arrest without making prior filing of a charge-sheet in the scheduled offence a condition precedent. Similarly, provisional attachment is an enabling measure and not a prerequisite for initiating investigation or prosecution. The legal challenge, therefore, was inconsistent with the structure of the Act.

Conclusion: The challenges based on absence of a charge-sheet in the predicate case and absence of prior attachment were rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine, and the refusal to apply section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, called for interference.

Analysis: The laundering activity was found to have continued till much later than the initial registration of the case, and the appellant remained in possession and enjoyment of the proceeds of crime during the relevant period. In that setting, the fine imposed by the trial court was not treated as hit by retrospectivity. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also held inapplicable because the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are distinct offences tried in different proceedings. Given the gravity of the conduct and the position held by the appellant, no sentencing leniency was found warranted.

Conclusion: The sentence of imprisonment and fine, and the refusal to extend concurrent-sentence benefit, were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The conviction, confiscation order, and sentence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were sustained in full, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the material consideration is the continued laundering of proceeds of crime, which is a continuing offence; prior inclusion of the predicate offence in the schedule, prior filing of a charge-sheet in the scheduled case, or prior attachment of property is not a precondition to maintainability.

---