Money-laundering liability can stand without predicate-offence ment, but only where proceeds of crime and a scheduled offence exist.

Money-laundering liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is independent of whether a person is named as an accused in the predicate scheduled offence; prosecution may proceed if the person knowingly assists or is involved with proceeds of crime. Property acquired before the alleged scheduled offence cannot be treated as proceeds of crime, while a later property could not be ruled untainted at the quashing stage without evidence at trial. Section 120B IPC is a scheduled offence only when the alleged conspiracy is to commit an offence already included in the PMLA Schedule; the Schedule cannot be enlarged by implication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person can be prosecuted for money-laundering even if she is not shown as an accused in the scheduled offence; (ii) whether the first and second properties could be treated as proceeds of crime; (iii) whether Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 becomes a scheduled offence when the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence not included in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether a person can be prosecuted for money-laundering even if she is not shown as an accused in the scheduled offence.

Analysis: Liability under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 depends on the existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime connected with that offence. The offence of money-laundering is independent and may be committed by a person who is not an accused in the predicate offence, if that person knowingly assists, is party to, or is involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The absence of the appellant's name in the chargesheets for the scheduled offences did not by itself bar prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether the first and second properties could be treated as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The first property was acquired before the alleged acts constituting the scheduled offence, and therefore it could not be linked to proceeds of crime. As to the second property, the material on record was insufficient to record a finding at the quashing stage that no tainted money was used; that question required evidence at trial. The challenge was considered only on the applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, without determining valuation or the legality of the sale deeds.

Conclusion: The first property could not be treated as proceeds of crime, while the second property could not be held to be untainted at the quashing stage.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 becomes a scheduled offence when the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence not included in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is selective and does not include every offence capable of generating proceeds of crime. Penal statutes must be strictly construed, and an interpretation that allows any non-scheduled offence to be converted into a scheduled offence merely by adding Section 120B would render the Schedule redundant. Section 120B is a scheduled offence only where the alleged conspiracy is to commit an offence already included in the Schedule.

Conclusion: Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence specifically included in the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; on the facts, no scheduled offence existed.

Final Conclusion: The complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be sustained against the appellant because the alleged conspiracy did not relate to a scheduled offence, and the proceedings were quashed as against her.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 only when the alleged conspiracy is to commit an offence already specified in the Schedule; otherwise, the Schedule cannot be expanded by implication.

---