Money-laundering prosecution may proceed independently of the predicate offence where prima facie involvement in proceeds of crime is shown.

Money-laundering prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 can proceed independently of the predicate offence where there is prima facie material showing concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of proceeds of crime. The absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR, and her conviction only for abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, did not bar proceedings under the Act. The charge was also not defeated by retrospectivity or double jeopardy, because money laundering was treated as a continuing offence and the proceeding was distinct from prosecution under the Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against for money laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 notwithstanding that she was not named in the FIR and stood convicted only for abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Whether the prosecution and charge under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were barred by retrospectivity or double jeopardy.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against for money laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 notwithstanding that she was not named in the FIR and stood convicted only for abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were held to operate on the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, and not merely on the identity of the person named in the predicate FIR. A scheduled offence was treated as the trigger for action under the Act, while the money-laundering prosecution itself remained independent and distinct. The material on record was found sufficient at the charge stage to show prima facie involvement of the petitioner in concealment, possession, use and projection of tainted property as untainted property. The conviction for abetment was treated as linked to the scheduled offence, and the absence of an express reference to the scheduled offence in the conviction order was held not to alter the legal position.

Conclusion: The petitioner could validly be proceeded against under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and the charge was not liable to be quashed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution and charge under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were barred by retrospectivity or double jeopardy.

Analysis: The offence of money laundering was treated as a continuing offence, and liability was held to depend on the date on which a person indulged in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, not merely on the date of the predicate offence. The later inclusion of clarificatory language in the statute was held not to enlarge the scope of the offence. The plea of double jeopardy was rejected because the proceeding under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was distinct from prosecution under the Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the doctrine was held not to bar such a prosecution.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by retrospectivity or double jeopardy, and the impugned charge was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on merits, and the order framing charge against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Money-laundering prosecution can proceed independently of the predicate offence where there is prima facie material of involvement in the concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of proceeds of crime, and such liability is not defeated by the absence of a separate conviction under the scheduled offence or by a plea of retrospectivity or double jeopardy.

---